This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-943
entitled 'Highway Congestion: Intelligent Transportation Systems'
Promise for Managing Congestion Falls Short, and DOT Could Better
Facilitate Their Strategic Use' which was released on September 14,
2005.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Committees:
September 2005:
Highway Congestion:
Intelligent Transportation Systems' Promise for Managing Congestion
Falls Short, and DOT Could Better Facilitate Their Strategic Use:
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-943]:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-05-943, a report to congressional committees:
Why GAO Did This Study:
Congestion is a serious and growing transportation problem for the
nation. Many strategies—like adding new lanes—have the potential to
alleviate congestion but can be costly and have limited application.
Another strategy is the use of communications, electronics, and
computer technologies—intelligent transportation systems (ITS)—to more
effectively utilize existing transportation infrastructure by improving
traffic flow. Congress established an ITS program in 1991, and the
Department of Transportation (DOT) subsequently set an ITS deployment
goal.
In this report GAO (1) describes the federal role in deployment; (2)
assesses DOT’s ITS goal and measurement efforts; (3) identifies what
ITS studies have found regarding the impacts of ITS deployment; and (4)
identifies the barriers to ITS deployment and use.
What GAO Found:
The federal role in ITS deployment includes goal setting, funding, and
facilitating states’ investment in ITS. In 1991, Congress set broad
goals and established funding for ITS, and in 1998, Congress
established a program to support ITS deployment. In a 1996 speech, the
Secretary of Transportation established a vision for ITS deployment to
save time and lives and improve quality of life. As part of this
vision, the Secretary also established a goal that the 75 largest
metropolitan areas deploy a complete ITS infrastructure by 2005 and
measures to track progress toward this goal. DOT has taken several
actions to support this goal, though it does not plan to update it.
Progress has been made toward achieving DOT’s deployment goal, but
DOT’s goal and measures have limitations and fall short of capturing
ITS’s impact on congestion. Among other things, the measures do not
capture the extent to which deployed ITS technologies are effectively
operated, and we found that some metropolitan areas’ operations of ITS
technologies are limited. For example, Chicago developed 10 traffic
management centers to monitor and respond to traffic congestion by
notifying emergency responders of traffic accidents, among other
things; however, 6 centers do not have full-time operators, which is
likely to limit their impact on congestion mitigation.
Many of the ITS studies we reviewed suggest that ITS deployment can
have benefits such as relieving congestion, traffic throughput, safety,
and air quality. Results from some studies suggest that ITS benefits
depend on effectively operating ITS technologies to meet local
conditions. However, few studies provided information about cost
effectiveness of the ITS deployments, which is essential for maximizing
public investments.
According to transportation officials GAO spoke with, barriers to ITS
deployment and use include the limited public awareness of the impact
of ITS, difficulty of funding ITS operations, limited technical
expertise, and lack of technical standards. DOT actions have had
limited success in overcoming these barriers.
A Chicago Metropolitan Area’s Traffic Management Center That Lacks
Staff Dedicated throughout the Day:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that the Secretary of Transportation improve the
measurement of ITS deployment and address some barriers to ITS
deployment to help state and local governments select projects that
cost effectively meet transportation goals. GAO provided a draft of
this report to the Department of Transportation for its review and
comment. The department generally agreed with the information in the
report and agreed to consider the recommendations.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-943.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact JayEtta Z. Hecker at
(202) 512-2834 or heckerj@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
The Federal Role in ITS Deployment Includes Goal Setting, Funding, and
Activities to Support States' Deployment of ITS:
Although Progress Has Occurred, DOT's ITS Goal and Measures Have
Limitations and Fall Short of Capturing Impact on Congestion:
Studies Have Found Positive Impacts of ITS Deployment Depend on
Effective Operations, but Few Have Included Cost-Effectiveness
Analyses:
Several Barriers Limit the Widespread Deployment of ITS:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Organizations Contacted:
Appendix II: Summary of DOT's Deployment Tracking Methodology:
Appendix III: Metropolitan Area Case Studies:
Chicago, Illinois:
San Francisco, California:
Las Vegas, Nevada:
Indianapolis, Indiana:
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Examples of Deployment Impacts from Our Review of ITS Studies:
Table 2: DOT's Deployment Component Indicators and Threshold Values:
Table 3: DOT's Integrated Deployment Classification Scheme:
Figures:
Figure 1: Select ITS Technologies Used to Manage Congestion:
Figure 2: Examples of ITS Technologies That Can Be Deployed and
Integrated in Metropolitan Areas:
Figure 3: ITS Deployment Ratings for 75 Metropolitan Areas, 1997 to
2004:
Figure 4: A Chicago Metropolitan Area's Traffic Management Center That
Lacks Staff Dedicated to Monitoring Traffic throughout the Day:
Figure 5: Artist's Depiction of Real-Time Travel Information in San
Francisco:
Figure 6: Indiana Hoosier Helper Van:
Abbreviations:
CMAQ: Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement program:
DOT: Department of Transportation:
FHWA: Federal Highway Administration:
ISTEA: Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991:
ITS: intelligent transportation systems:
JPO: Joint Program Office:
NHS: National Highway System program:
NTOC: National Transportation Operations Coalition:
SAFETEA-LU: Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users:
SDO: standards development organization:
STP: Surface Transportation Program:
TEA-21: Transportation Equity Act for the 21ST Century:
Letter September 14, 2005:
The Honorable James M. Inhofe:
Chairman:
Committee on Environment and Public Works:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Christopher S. "Kit" Bond:
Chairman:
Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure:
Committee on Environment and Public Works:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Sherwood L. Boehlert:
Chairman:
The Honorable Bart Gordon:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Science:
House of Representatives:
Increasing passenger and freight travel has led to growing congestion
in the nation's transportation system, which has posed a burden on the
nation's quality of life through wasted energy, time, and money;
increased pollution; and threats to safety. According to transportation
researchers, even with slow growth in jobs and travel in 2003, the cost
of congestion to the nation's economy in terms of extra fuel used and
time spent in congestion was $63 billion.[Footnote 1] Moreover,
passenger and freight traffic are expected to grow substantially in the
future, increasing the challenge of preventing congestion from
overwhelming the transportation system. For example, by 2010, the
Department of Transportation (DOT) forecasts that travel on roads will
have increased by about 25 percent from 2000, while freight traffic
will have increased by 43 percent from 1998. One tool available to help
reduce congestion is the use of intelligent transportation systems
(ITS), such as electronic technologies designed to monitor or control
traffic flow, in order to improve transportation system operations,
management, and performance.[Footnote 2]
We have previously reported that there are a range of strategies to
mitigate the effect of increasing congestion, including building
capacity through construction, corrective and preventative maintenance,
rehabilitation, managing system use through pricing or other
techniques, and operations and system management, including the use of
ITS.[Footnote 3] We have also reported that using the full range of
these strategies offers the promise of being more effective than
placing emphasis on any one technique. For example, building new
infrastructure can ease congestion, but it is not always a viable
solution due to constraints such as the cost of construction or limited
availability of land. Moreover, improving system operations,
management, and performance through the strategic use of ITS
technologies has the potential to reduce congestion without major
capital investments. ITS technologies range in complexity from ramp
meters, which are small traffic light-like devices that control the
traffic flow on ramps leading to freeways or tollways, to fully
integrated systems in which several technologies work together to
process information and respond to traffic conditions. For example, a
traffic-sensing device could collect data on traffic flow by monitoring
traffic volume and speed, which could be used to alter the timing of
freeway ramp meters and arterial road traffic signals to improve
traffic flow as well as to alert travelers to specific traffic
conditions using variable message boards or other devices.
Over the past 14 years, the federal government has provided billions of
dollars for investment in surface transportation projects through the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) and
its successors, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21ST Century (TEA-
21) and the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU).[Footnote 4] Recognizing
the potential of ITS as a tool to improve mobility, among other
benefits, Congress established a federal ITS research program and some
dedicated ITS funding in ISTEA and continued this program and funding
in TEA-21 and SAFETEA-LU. Dedicated funding for integrating ITS
deployments from TEA-21 has averaged about $113 million a
year.[Footnote 5] Although it continued to fund the ITS research
program, SAFETEA-LU did not directly reauthorize the ITS integration
deployment program. It did create a new program, known as the
intelligent transportation infrastructure program, that will help
states monitor real time traffic and travel conditions on major U.S.
highways. In addition to dedicated ITS funding, state and local
governments may choose to spend some of the billions of dollars of
federal funds provided through other surface transportation programs on
ITS technologies. Among many activities DOT has undertaken in support
of the ITS program, in 1996, it established a goal that 75 of the
nation's largest metropolitan areas would have a complete intelligent
transportation infrastructure by 2005.
SAFETEA-LU authorized billions of dollars more in federal funding for
surface transportation projects through fiscal year 2009. As we have
reported, for these funds to have the greatest effect on the congestion
of the existing transportation system, transportation planners and
decision makers need to select the appropriate mix of tools and
resulting projects to efficiently use available funds. Making
appropriate and cost-effective investment choices will become even more
critical if, as we and other analysts have been reporting, the nation
faces a sustained period of deficits and fiscal imbalance, resulting
from the growing mandatory commitments for programs including Social
Security and Medicare as well as a large investment in homeland
security. Given these fiscal challenges, careful decisions will need to
be made to ensure that transportation investments maximize the benefits
of federal highway funds and achieve projected performance outcomes.
However, as we have noted previously, there are currently no mechanisms
in the federal-aid highway program that link federal funding to project
performance.[Footnote 6]
In order to assess the extent to which ITS is being effectively used as
a tool to reduce congestion, this report has the following
objectives:[Footnote 7] (1) describe the federal role in ITS
deployment; (2) assess progress toward DOT's ITS deployment goal and
DOT's measures for assessing the status of ITS; (3) identify what ITS
studies have found regarding the impacts of ITS deployment; and (4)
identify barriers to ITS deployment and use.
To describe the federal role in ITS deployment for mitigating
congestion, we reviewed legislation, the Secretary of Transportation's
1996 speech for the Transportation Research Board's annual conference,
as well as documents from DOT, including performance plans and other
relevant materials. To assess progress toward DOT's ITS deployment goal
and DOT's measures, we reviewed DOT's status reports on ITS deployment
and interviewed DOT ITS officials who track deployment of ITS
technologies in over 75 metropolitan areas. We also selected four
congested areas to study in depth by sorting the 75 largest U.S.
metropolitan areas according to both congestion level and DOT's
integrated deployment rating and selecting two areas that DOT has
determined have deployed ITS to a great extent and two areas that DOT
has determined have deployed ITS to a lesser extent. During our visits
to these four areas--Chicago, San Francisco, Indianapolis, and Las
Vegas--we interviewed federal, state, and local transportation
officials about their experiences with ITS and the ITS technologies
deployed in each area. To identify the impacts of ITS deployment on
congestion, we reviewed 38 studies issued since 2000 that we obtained
from our site visits and DOT's ITS benefits database, a repository of
academic and government papers evaluating the deployment of ITS
technologies in U.S. and international locations, including any cost-
effectiveness information encompassed in the studies. A DOT contractor
reviewed the studies for methodological soundness before including them
in DOT's benefits database. We also reviewed the DOT benefit database
studies we selected to ensure these studies were based on sound
methodologies and determined these studies were sufficiently reliable
for describing actual and potential impacts of ITS technologies. We
selected only studies on U.S. deployments, since our review is focused
on ITS deployment in the United States and the federal ITS program. In
addition, we did not assess the potential benefits of any one
technology, such as open road electronic tolling, on the nation's
transportation system. To determine barriers to ITS deployment in
congested metropolitan areas, we discussed barriers to deploying and
maintaining ITS technologies with the federal, state, and local
transportation officials we visited at our four case study locations.
Although ITS technologies can be used for many purposes, including
improving highway safety, we focused this analysis on the role of ITS
for mitigating congestion. We conducted our work from October 2004
through August 2005 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. (See app. 1 for more information about our scope
and methodology.)
Results in Brief:
The federal role in ITS deployment includes setting goals, providing
funding, and performing other activities to facilitate states' and
localities' investment in ITS. Congress set broad goals and established
funding for ITS through ISTEA in 1991. In 1998, TEA-21 established the
ITS integration program with the goal of improving ITS deployment
through supporting the integration of ITS systems across and within
metropolitan and rural areas. TEA-21 authorized about $113 million
annually for the integration program since 1998, and each year since,
Congress has designated these funds to specific states or projects. In
addition, other federal-aid highway funds are available for states to
use for ITS technologies. In a 1996 speech, the Secretary of
Transportation, Federico Peña, DOT established a vision for ITS
deployment to create an intelligent transportation infrastructure
across the United States that would save time and lives and improve the
quality of life for Americans. In this speech, Secretary Peña
articulated an ITS deployment goal--to achieve a complete ITS
infrastructure in the country's 75 largest metropolitan areas within 10
years--by the end of fiscal year 2005 according to DOT officials. The
Secretary also emphasized the importance of strategic investment in ITS
technologies; projected impacts of increasing infrastructure capacity
and reducing Americans' travel time by at least 15 percent; and
emphasized the cost effectiveness of ITS. The Secretary's goal was
incorporated into subsequent DOT performance plans with interim
measures under its mobility and economic growth goal. DOT does not plan
to update the deployment goal once it expires at the end of 2005. DOT
has undertaken several roles to facilitate states' ITS deployment, such
as showcasing ITS benefits through a benefits database available on its
Web site. DOT also developed measures to track progress toward the ITS
deployment goal. DOT biennially surveys the 75 metropolitan areas'
transportation-related agencies and rates the areas' deployment levels
according to its measures.
Progress has been made toward achieving DOT's deployment goal, but
DOT's goal and measures have limitations and fall short of capturing
ITS's impact on congestion. According to DOT, 62 of the 75 metropolitan
areas had met its goal of deploying integrated ITS infrastructure in
2004. DOT defined the Secretary's goal of complete intelligent
transportation infrastructure to include two elements--deployment,
meaning the extent that certain technologies are installed over certain
areas such as freeways, and integration, meaning the extent of
coordination between different agencies that deploy ITS technologies.
However, although the Secretary's goal calls for a "complete" ITS
infrastructure, according to DOT's criteria, metropolitan areas with
relatively low thresholds of ITS infrastructure--such as 20 percent of
freeway miles and 33 percent of signalized intersections covered by
certain ITS technologies--may meet the goal. DOT officials stated they
established these relatively low thresholds because they did not have a
way to determine the extent to which ITS should be deployed in each
metropolitan area, and they also stated that complete deployment is a
very long-term goal that perhaps will never be reached. In addition,
although DOT's goal and measures give a sense of progress of ITS
deployment, they fail to capture a number of important dimensions of
evaluating the status of ITS that the Secretary alluded to in his 1996
speech: they do not take into account the level of ITS needed to
accomplish local goals and priorities; they do not capture the extent
to which deployed ITS technologies are being effectively operated; and
they do not evaluate the impact or cost-effectiveness of ITS. The lack
of evaluation of outcomes, including impact or cost effectiveness, also
has been identified as a limitation of other highway programs. The
status of ITS in the four metropolitan areas we visited illustrate the
shortfalls of DOT's ITS deployment goal and measures. Although San
Francisco and Chicago, both of which DOT counted toward meeting the
deployment goal, have made considerable strides in implementing ITS,
they face limitations related to operating their ITS technologies. For
example, Chicago developed 10 traffic management centers, which monitor
traffic conditions and can respond to traffic incidents by dispatching
emergency vehicles to quickly clear highway accidents, thus reducing
traffic delays. However 7 of the 10 centers do not have full-time
operators, which limits the centers' potential congestion mitigation
benefits. Similarly, although neither Indianapolis nor Las Vegas were
rated by DOT as contributing toward meeting the deployment goal,
transportation officials in these metropolitan areas stated they had
deployed the amount of ITS needed to meet their local needs. For
example, Las Vegas was rated as not meeting the goal because the area
had not yet deployed ITS technologies on freeways--a key measure in
DOT's rating of ITS deployment. However, Las Vegas officials said they
had focused on deploying ITS on arterial roadways because they
experienced more congestion on the arterials than on the freeways.
While studies show that ITS technologies can provide benefits including
reducing congestion and increasing safety, the studies also indicate
that the existence and level of most benefits depends on the extent to
which ITS technologies are effectively operated to coordinate with
local traffic conditions. In addition, most studies do not include an
analysis of cost effectiveness. Although congestion is a serious
problem, ITS is one tool that has the potential to reduce the delay due
to congestion. The Texas Transportation Institute, a leading
transportation research institution, estimated that in 2003, congestion
caused 3.7 billion hours of travel delay, while operations
improvements, including ITS, reduced the hours of delay by 336 million
hours in 85 urban areas. In addition to congestion benefits, ITS
deployment can improve traffic throughput (number of vehicles
accommodated on highways), safety, air quality, and traveler behavior.
However, studies also suggest that the effectiveness of ITS
technologies depends on local conditions and how state and local
agencies implement and operate the ITS technology. For example, one
study suggested that ramp metering in Detroit would be most effective
during major events or traffic incidents when freeway congestion was
higher, because during average conditions, the improvement of traffic
flow on the freeway due to ramp metering did not outweigh the delays on
entrance ramps and arterials leading to the freeway. In addition, 33 of
the 38 studies we reviewed did not include a review of cost
effectiveness. Cost information in relation to benefits is necessary to
help states and localities choose the best tool for addressing their
congestion problem while maximizing the return on their transportation
investments. This is especially important because ITS applications may
have different cost structures and life cycles as compared to other
types of highway investments--for example, relatively low initial
deployment costs but ongoing operational costs--that need to be
understood in order to strategically evaluate ITS as a tool.
State and local agencies responsible for deploying ITS technologies
have faced several barriers to deploying ITS. One barrier to deployment
is that state and local transportation officials often view other
transportation investment options, such as adding a new lane to a
highway, more favorably than ITS when deciding how to spend their
limited transportation funds. DOT has worked to make ITS projects a
more appealing option by emphasizing the benefits of ITS technologies
through its benefits database on its Web site and field office support
to local transportation officials. However, in prior work, we found
that information on benefits does not have a decisive impact on the
final investment choices made by state and local officials.[Footnote 8]
Another barrier to ITS deployment cited by state and local
transportation officials is a lack of funding for ITS installations and
operations. We also found that officials in four areas we visited were
not aware that federal funds could be used for operational costs. DOT
officials said they have attempted to inform state transportation
agencies that operational costs are eligible for federal assistance,
but confusion on this issue remains. State transportation officials
also told us that a lack of technical expertise has hindered ITS
deployment. Finally, state transportation officials said that a lack of
technical standards for ITS technologies makes it difficult to ensure
that systems purchased by different localities can be integrated. DOT
has taken steps to support the issuance of technical standards by
standards organizations, but they have had difficulty keeping up with
the pace of technological advances. According to transportation
officials we spoke with, these barriers have reduced the amount of ITS
deployed, and therefore have likely limited the impact of ITS on
mitigating congestion on our nation's roads.
Generally, the promise of ITS as an integrated tool for managing
congestion has not yet been met. Although we recognize that DOT can not
always influence ITS investments, limitations of DOT's efforts in goal
setting, measuring, and other activities such as evaluating outcomes
have reduced DOT's ability to facilitate state and local governments'
strategic investment in ITS. We are making a recommendation to improve
DOT's ITS deployment measures. We also are making recommendations to
improve DOT's efforts to address some barriers to ITS deployment to
help state and local governments invest strategically in ITS. We
provided a draft of this report to the Department of Transportation for
its review and comment. DOT officials generally concurred with the
report and agreed to consider the recommendations.
Background:
ITS technologies use communications, electronics, sensors, and computer
hardware and software to improve the performance or safety of freeway
and transit systems that are designed to improve traffic flow. Traffic
congestion results from many sources such as recurring high levels of
daily traffic as well as nonrecurring events such as traffic incidents,
special events and bad weather that can limit the usable physical
capacity of existing roadways. Therefore strategies, such as ITS, that
are designed to improve the operations or efficiency of existing
roadways may improve traffic flow and reduce congestion.
The ITS technologies that local transportation agencies deploy to
manage traffic in congested areas typically are ones that have gone
through research and development and are readily available. Some
technologies, like pavement loop detectors (devices that indicate the
presence or passage of vehicles), have been around for at least 40
years, while others, like adaptive traffic control systems (traffic
light systems that are timed according to current traffic conditions)
are just beginning to be deployed. Figure 1 depicts some examples of
ITS technologies that are used to address congestion.
Figure 1: Select ITS Technologies Used to Manage Congestion:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
In highly congested metropolitan areas, ITS infrastructure tends to be
more complex because it typically consists of a set of systems deployed
by multiple agencies. For example, the state transportation department,
city traffic department, transit agency, and toll authority may each
deploy different ITS technologies that address their transportation
needs. Transportation agencies may integrate their ITS technologies by
coordinating ITS information sharing and other operations. For example,
a city transportation department that deploys loop detectors designed
to measure the number and speed of vehicles passing through an
intersection may use technology to provide the traffic volume data
collected by the loop detector to the state highway agency, in order
that a different ITS technology can create travel time reports for
variable message signs. Integration like this can facilitate the flow
of information between a number of technologies and involved
institutions and improve the overall traffic flow throughout a system.
ITS can be further refined--and made more "intelligent"--by the
deployment of technologies that adjust automatically to current traffic
conditions, such as adaptive traffic control systems. Figure 2
illustrates some of the ITS technologies that can be deployed and
integrated to improve transportation system management.
Figure 2: Examples of ITS Technologies That Can Be Deployed and
Integrated in Metropolitan Areas:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Funding for transportation projects, including ITS, comes from a
variety of sources, including federal, state, and local governments;
special taxing authorities and assessment districts; and user fees and
tolls. Federal transportation funds primarily come from the federal
Highway Trust Fund--the mechanism to account for federal highway user
tax receipts. These funds are distributed to states through formulas
that determine the amount of money given to each state.
As we reported earlier, although DOT has established goals and
performance measures for the federal-aid highway program to enhance
mobility and economic growth, the program's current structure does not
link funding with performance or the accomplishment of these
goals.[Footnote 9] In addition, because the federal-aid highway program
is primarily funded under a formula program, projects are not subject
to an evaluation process at the federal level, and there are no federal
requirements for performance evaluation of highway investments--
although the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) does ensure that
federal highway funding is being spent on an eligible roadway for
eligible purposes. State and local transportation officials have the
flexibility to select projects on the basis of their communities'
priorities and needs.[Footnote 10] ITS technologies, which can be
developed as projects in their own right or as one component of a
larger project (for example, a project to replace the surface of a
roadway could include the installation of loop detectors), are among
the many types of projects transportation officials may consider during
the project selection process.
The Federal Role in ITS Deployment Includes Goal Setting, Funding, and
Activities to Support States' Deployment of ITS:
Congress set broad goals for ITS through ISTEA and TEA-21 and
established funding for ITS deployment in TEA-21. In 1996, DOT
established a goal for ITS deployment that was incorporated into DOT's
performance plans. DOT also has taken on several roles and activities
related to facilitating ITS deployment.
Congress Set Broad Goals and Established Funding for ITS Deployment
through Recent Legislation:
The federal ITS program was established by ISTEA, when Congress
authorized the program to support the development and field testing of
ITS systems. During ISTEA, Congress provided the ITS program with about
$1.3 billion for research and testing of ITS technologies such as
adaptive traffic signal control and advanced vehicle control systems.
This funding included $645 million for ITS under ISTEA and $624 million
provided through the appropriations process. While ISTEA did not
establish a deployment program per se, the field test program consisted
of testing and evaluating the application of ITS technologies in real
world conditions.
In 1998, TEA-21 authorized a total of about $1.3 billion for ITS. It
provided about $679 million--an average of about $113 million annually-
-for a newly established ITS integration program with the broad goal of
improving ITS deployment through supporting and accelerating the
integration of ITS systems across and within metropolitan and rural
areas, and about $603 million primarily for ITS research.[Footnote 11]
TEA-21 also directed DOT to fund projects that demonstrated or
considered a number of elements, including cooperation among agencies
and ensuring long-term operations and maintenance, among other things.
In practice, however, the appropriations and authorizing committees
together have fully designated the amount of funding for the ITS
integration program through legislative earmarks. For example, in
fiscal year 2001, Congress designated about $128 million to 92 projects
in 41 states and the District of Columbia. DOT reviews the projects to
ensure that the projects being funded meet guidelines DOT established
based on legislative direction, but has not had a role in directing the
funding to specific projects.[Footnote 12]
In addition to the congressionally designated funds, Congress has made
federal funding available to state and local governments for ITS
technologies through other federal transportation programs within the
federal-aid highway program. For example, ITS projects are funded
through the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement program
(CMAQ), which provides funding for projects that contribute to air
quality improvements and congestion mitigation in areas with poor air
quality; the National Highway System program (NHS), which provides
funding for improvements to rural and urban roads that are part of the
NHS, including the Interstate System; and the Surface Transportation
Program (STP), which provides funding for projects on any federal-aid
highway. In general, FHWA distributes highway program funds to state
transportation departments through formulas; and the states, in turn,
allocate the funds to urban and rural areas primarily on the basis of
local priorities and needs. Consistent with requirements protecting
state and local agencies' ability to select projects, the federal
government does not control the allocation of these formula funds to
projects. To determine which projects they will fund, state and local
governments go through a planning process that involves the
participation of many stakeholders and entails evaluating goals,
finances, and other factors. DOT estimates that states and localities
annually invest between $500 million to $1 billion in ITS projects, but
DOT does not track the actual amounts invested in ITS. According to DOT
and local transportation officials, tracking would be difficult because
often ITS is funded as one element of a larger project, such as
building a road, and the funds that go toward the ITS application are
not separated from the funds for the overall project.
DOT Established a Goal for ITS Deployment in 1996 and Incorporated It
into DOT's Performance Plans:
In a 1996 speech, 2 years before TEA-21 established the ITS integration
program, the Secretary of Transportation, Federico Peña, established a
broad vision for ITS deployment to create an intelligent transportation
infrastructure across the United States that would save time and lives
and improve the quality of life for Americans. In articulating this
vision, Secretary Peña compared the potential for ITS to past
accomplishments including building the interstate system and landing a
man on the moon. He also compared it to the development of the
Internet, saying that the next frontier for surface transportation
would be in the information age, and that if Americans could surf on
the information superhighways, they should be able to drive on high-
tech highways. As part of this speech, the Secretary articulated an ITS
deployment goal--to achieve a complete ITS infrastructure in the
country's 75 largest metropolitan areas within 10 years--by the end of
fiscal year 2005 according to DOT officials.[Footnote 13] The Secretary
emphasized that achieving this goal would require partnerships between
federal, state, and local officials and the private sector.
The Secretary also projected several results or impacts of this goal:
reduced congestion-related costs and commuting times and increased
safety through reduced response time for emergency vehicles responding
to traffic accidents, and he declared that DOT would measure progress
toward this goal and report on it annually. He also included an outcome-
oriented measure for the goal, declaring that the initiative would
reduce the travel time of Americans by at least 15 percent, whether
they traveled by car, bus, train, or subway--an amount that he declared
was the equivalent to an extra week of vacation every year for
Americans who commute one hour a day.
In addition, the Secretary emphasized the importance of integration so
that the different technologies could be used together. He described
nine components that should make up ITS in the 75 metropolitan areas,
including such systems as traffic control systems and freeway
management systems.[Footnote 14] He stated that the federal role in
making this goal a reality included developing a national architecture
and standards for ITS technologies to ensure that local ITS investments
would be interoperable, investing in model deployment sites to serve as
examples for the rest of the country, and investing in training to
expand technical expertise for deploying ITS technologies. He
emphasized strategic investment to pay for this infrastructure, alluded
to the fact that federal-aid funds could be used to fund it, and
emphasized the cost effectiveness of ITS, saying that building the
needed highway capacity for 50 cities in the next 10 years would cost
$150 billion, while implementing an intelligent transportation
infrastructure for these 50 cities would cost $10 billion and gain two-
thirds of the capacity needed.
The metropolitan deployment goal established by the Secretary in this
speech was incorporated into subsequent DOT performance plans as a
measure under the broader goal of mobility. In addition, in DOT's 2004
Performance Plan, ITS was included as a strategy to achieve another
performance measure under the goal of mobility--to limit annual growth
of urban area travel time under congested conditions to 0.2 percent
below the otherwise expected increases in congestion.
DOT officials indicated that they do not plan on updating the ITS
deployment goal once it expires at the end of 2005. They noted that
SAFETEA-LU provides for or implies several other challenging goals for
the ITS program, such as reducing metropolitan congestion by not less
than 5 percent by 2010. DOT officials are reviewing the statute and
considering how to implement these new provisions.
DOT Has Established Several Roles to Facilitate ITS Deployment:
DOT has established several roles to facilitate ITS deployment in line
with the federal roles laid out in the Secretary's 1996 speech.
Although DOT originally included creating funding incentives for ITS as
one of its roles, it has since dropped that role because Congress,
through the authorization and appropriations process, has fully
designated the locations and amounts of funding from the ITS
integration program during TEA-21. Other roles DOT has maintained
include demonstrating ITS deployment, showcasing deployment benefits,
facilitating the development of technical standards, and building
technical expertise.[Footnote 15]
To demonstrate deployment, DOT established model deployment sites to
provide real-world examples of ITS technology's potential application
to other metropolitan areas across the country. In 1996, DOT chose the
Phoenix, San Antonio, Seattle, and New York/New Jersey/Connecticut
areas to lead a new program to demonstrate the value of ITS technology
in improving transportation. This program called for public and private
sector partners to develop and integrate ITS technology to reduce
travel times, improve safety, and provide enhanced travel information
to the public. To ensure that lessons from these sites were documented
and available to be shared, DOT conducted and documented a
comprehensive ITS evaluation for the Seattle, San Antonio, and Phoenix
sites. In addition, a national evaluation was performed with a focus on
synthesizing findings across the entire program. These evaluations are
available in DOT's benefits database.
DOT established this benefits database in 1998 to showcase and expand
the understanding of ITS benefits and transmit existing knowledge of
ITS benefits to transportation professionals. The database is
accessible on DOT's Web site and contains about 230 summaries of
academic, government, and other studies of ITS deployments in the
United States and internationally. The summaries in the database
generally include information such as the type of ITS deployment, the
location of the ITS deployment, and the results of the deployment. DOT
also maintains a database on ITS costs. The purpose of this cost
database, which contains a range of costs for various ITS technologies
as reported from completed projects and from the initial phases of ITS
projects, is to provide cost data to state and local transportation
officials in the planning and initial cost estimation phases of ITS
projects. While benefits and cost information are not directly linked,
the two databases do use the same classification scheme for
categorizing different ITS, and by browsing the various categories,
users could obtain benefits and costs information for similar systems.
DOT is also facilitating the development of technical standards. These
technical standards specify, in detail, how technological components
will communicate with one another. By specifying how systems and
components interconnect, the standards promote interoperability--the
ability of systems to provide services and to accept services from
other systems so that different ITS technologies can be integrated and
operated together. DOT, through cooperative agreements with six
standards development organizations (SDOs) such as the Institute of
Transportation Engineers, develops nonproprietary, industry-based,
consensus ITS standards. To date, SDOs have published 75 ITS standards,
approved another 9, and have begun processing another 6. The SDOs are
developing 21 other standards and DOT officials expect that many will
be completed by the end of 2005. In addition, to implement a
requirement in TEA-21 that ITS projects conform to national
architecture and standards, DOT finalized a rule in 2001 requiring ITS
projects using federal funds be part of a regional architecture plan
that establishes a process to ensure that ITS projects conform to
national standards in order that they can be integrated with other
areas. Regions and states then had until April 2005 to complete their
regional ITS architectures.
Further, to build technical expertise on ITS technologies, DOT has
provided education, training, and technical assistance for ITS
technologies through FHWA resource centers, divisions, and guides and
pamphlets. DOT also has a professional capacity building program that
is designed to provide state and local transportation officials the
curriculum needed to install ITS applications. In addition, DOT
headquarters office offers additional resources including a Peer-to-
Peer program designed to link technical experts from one local area to
an agency in a different geographic location.
DOT also used the nine components established in the Secretary's speech
to develop criteria to track progress toward the goal of having 75 of
the largest metropolitan areas outfitted with a complete intelligent
transportation infrastructure by 2005. DOT biennially surveys the
areas' transportation-related agencies and rates the areas' deployment
levels according to its criteria.[Footnote 16]
Although Progress Has Occurred, DOT's ITS Goal and Measures Have
Limitations and Fall Short of Capturing Impact on Congestion:
Although progress has been made toward DOT's ITS deployment goal, DOT's
goal and measures provide a misleading picture of the status of ITS,
are not designed around local priorities, do not assess the level of
operations of deployed ITS, and do not capture information on ITS
impacts or cost effectiveness. In past work, we have found that
analyses of impacts and cost effectiveness are absent from other
federal-aid highway programs as well, in part due to the structure of
the federal-aid highway program. The four metropolitan areas we visited
illustrate limitations of DOT's goal and measures.
Some Progress Has Been Made Toward Achieving DOT's Deployment Goal, but
DOT's Measures and Rating System Overstate the Status of ITS
Deployment:
DOT's reporting on progress toward its deployment goal shows that many
of the 75 metropolitan areas targeted in the goal have increased their
level of ITS deployment since 1997, when DOT began tracking this
progress, but DOT's ratings overstate the actual status of ITS in these
metropolitan areas. According to DOT, 62 of the 75 metropolitan areas
had met DOT's goal of deploying integrated ITS infrastructure in 2004,
up from 36 metropolitan areas meeting the goal in 1997. While 13 of the
75 metropolitan areas still were rated as falling short of the goal in
2004, the increase in the number of metropolitan areas counted toward
meeting the goal since 1997 suggests that a significant increase in the
level of ITS has occurred in many of the 75 metropolitan areas.
Although many metropolitan areas have made progress in deploying ITS,
the measures and rating system that DOT uses to report progress toward
the ITS deployment goal, particularly when compared to the language of
the Secretary's goal--for a "complete" intelligent transportation
infrastructure--provides an overstated sense of success regarding the
actual status of ITS in these metropolitan areas. Specifically, DOT
defined the Secretary's goal of complete intelligent infrastructure to
include two measurable elements--deployment, meaning the extent that
certain technologies have been installed over certain areas, such as
freeways; and integration, meaning the extent of coordination between
different agencies that deploy ITS technologies. DOT used the 9
components established in the Secretary's speech to develop criteria to
measure ITS deployment,[Footnote 17] and also developed criteria to
measure integration between three entities in each metropolitan area--
state governments, local governments, and public transit authorities.
(For more information on DOT's rating system, see app. 2.) DOT also
developed criteria to combine metropolitan areas' measures for
deployment and integration to come up with an overall rating of high,
medium, or low.
DOT considers its goal met when all 75 metropolitan areas are rated
high or medium. However, it established fairly low thresholds for
rating an area as high or medium because it did not have a way to
determine the extent of ITS that should be deployed in each area based,
for example, on local traffic conditions or priorities. For example, an
area can be rated medium--and thus meet the goal--if its level of
deployment includes 20 percent of its freeway miles under electronic
surveillance and 33 percent of its signalized intersections under
computerized control--even if it has no ITS applications related to
transit management, traveler information, or emergency management
services.[Footnote 18] In addition, the area rated as medium would have
to demonstrate its level of integration by including some coordination
between state government, local government, and the transit authority.
According to DOT, it set these thresholds at relatively low levels
because few metropolitan areas have local ITS goals establishing the
level of ITS deployment they deem appropriate. Without such local
goals, DOT decided to measure (1) the extent of ITS deployment in
locations where ITS could be deployed and (2) current integration
compared to extensive integration between three government entities--
but to use low thresholds for considering a metropolitan area to have
met the goal.
DOT itself states that the metropolitan areas it rates as meeting the
goal do not have a complete ITS infrastructure. For example, in its
2004 report on progress toward the goal, DOT states that even
metropolitan areas that are deployment leaders may still have "miles to
go" before deploying a complete ITS infrastructure--a level of
deployment beyond DOT's rating of high deployment, which DOT does not
define. DOT officials told us that complete deployment is a very long-
term endeavor that may never be reached and that it was important to
get the "seeds" of deployment planted. DOT officials stated that
according to its criteria, metropolitan areas that received high
ratings had officials who demonstrated an understanding of ITS and were
making improvements in deployment and integration to an already
existing ITS infrastructure. However, those metropolitan areas may not
have deployed or integrated ITS technologies to their fullest potential
and may be experiencing significant challenges to more fully deploying
and integrating these technologies.
In spite of these issues, DOT's criteria and the deployment information
it collects have been useful in measuring the 75 metropolitan areas'
progress in increasing deployment and integration since 1996 and DOT
intends to continue to track deployment even though it does not plan to
update the deployment goal once it expires at the end of 2005. For
example, the Tucson metropolitan area was rated low in 1997 but was
rated as high in 2004, suggesting that it has made substantial progress
in deploying and integrating ITS. Similarly, DOT officials said their
tracking methods provide a basic means of comparing the extent of ITS
in one metropolitan area versus another. For example, in Chicago, which
is rated high, 55 percent of the area's freeway miles are covered by
electronic surveillance, and several ITS deployments controlled by the
state are linked to deployments controlled by local transportation or
law enforcement agencies. On the other hand, in Las Vegas, which is
rated low, none of the area's freeway miles are covered by electronic
surveillance, and the state DOT is just beginning to link its
deployments with those of the local transportation and law enforcement
agencies. DOT officials indicated that they intend to continue to track
deployment after the 2005 deadline expires. Figure 3 shows the number
of the 75 metropolitan areas ranked high, medium, and low from 1997 to
2004.
Figure 3: ITS Deployment Ratings for 75 Metropolitan Areas, 1997 to
2004:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
DOT's ITS Goal and Measures Fail to Capture Important Dimensions of
Evaluating ITS Status, Including, Similar to Other Highway Programs,
Evaluating Outcomes:
DOT's ITS goal and measures fail to capture a number of important
dimensions of evaluating ITS status that were alluded to in the
Secretary's 1996 vision for ITS: they do not take into account the
level of ITS needed to accomplish local goals and priorities; they do
not capture the extent to which deployed ITS technologies are being
effectively operated; and they do not evaluate the impact or cost-
effectiveness of ITS. The lack of evaluation of outcomes such as impact
or cost effectiveness has also been identified as a limitation in other
highway programs and is partly due to the structure of the federal-aid
highway program.
DOT's ITS Goal and Measures Do Not Take into Account the Level of ITS
Needed to Accomplish Local Goals:
In establishing DOT's vision for ITS deployment, the Secretary
emphasized the need for strategic investment; however, DOT's ITS goal
and measures do not incorporate any evaluations of local ITS needs that
could help ensure that ITS was used as a component of a balanced
strategy to address local transportation conditions. Without an idea of
what a metropolitan area's integrated transportation system, including
ITS, should consist of, it is difficult to determine what the right
percentage of deployment of different technologies would be. In the
absence of such information, DOT created a goal and thresholds for the
measures that assumed that all 75 metropolitan areas should exceed
specified levels of ITS rather than reflecting local priorities
established through local ITS strategies and goal setting.
DOT officials acknowledge that the goal focuses on measuring what a
metropolitan area could deploy rather than what a metropolitan area
should deploy and that deployment goals should be specific to a
metropolitan area and its specific transportation needs. According to a
DOT official, a goal focused on what metropolitan areas should deploy
would be ideal but would be difficult to establish because it would
require establishing the transportation needs of each metropolitan
area. According to a 2003 DOT ITS deployment report, this could be
done, for example, through locally defined deployment goals that could
then provide the basis for establishing a national goal. According to
DOT, while this approach would be more meaningful, few metropolitan
areas have completed ITS needs assessments or set deployment goals.
DOT's ITS Goal and Measures Do Not Capture the Extent of ITS
Operations:
Another dimension of evaluating ITS status not captured in DOT's goal
and measures is the extent to which deployed ITS technologies are
operated and maintained effectively. Among other things, the 1996 DOT
Secretary's speech envisioned that ITS would increase the capacity of
existing infrastructure, an outcome likely to depend on ITS
technologies being operated effectively as well as deployed and
integrated. However, although DOT tracks progress toward the goal by
measuring deployment and integration, it does not track the operational
level of ITS technologies in the 75 metropolitan areas.[Footnote 19]
This is a concern since there are indications that some metropolitan
areas have not been fully operating systems that are deployed and
integrated. For example, the National Transportation Operations
Coalition recently gave a collective grade of D minus for the
operations of about 83,000 of the 260,000 traffic signals across the
U.S.[Footnote 20] According to the study, a contributing factor to this
low grade was that officials operating traffic signals are updating the
signal timing plans so infrequently that they are not responding to
current traffic conditions.
DOT's ITS Goal and Measures Do Not Capture Evaluation of Outcomes,
Similar to Other Highway Programs:
Another limitation of DOT's goal and measures in evaluating the status
of ITS is that they do not include outcome-oriented measures such as
the impact or cost-effectiveness of ITS. Although the Secretary's 1996
speech envisioned that ITS would lead to positive impacts on congestion
and even included an outcome measure of reducing travel time of
Americans by at least 15 percent, DOT's goal and measures focus on
outputs such as a metropolitan area's deployment of certain types of
ITS on certain types of roads. However, DOT's rating system does not
consider the impact of such deployment on outcomes such as travel time
or road capacity.
In its 2004 Performance Plan, DOT identified ITS deployment as a
strategy to help it meet the outcome-oriented goal of limiting annual
growth of urban area travel time under congested conditions to 0.2
percent below the otherwise expected increases in congestion. However,
it did not establish a method to measure whether ITS deployment was
helping to meet this outcome. DOT's 2004 Performance Plan also
incorporates its ITS deployment goal as a performance measure for the
strategic goal of mobility. However, the strategies and initiatives for
achieving this performance measure also emphasize deployment and
integration rather than impact. For example, DOT's strategies include
continued deployment of ITS applications, systems operations and
training, and ITS standards setting.
Moreover, in his 1996 speech, the Secretary emphasized the cost
effectiveness of ITS investments in comparison to investments in
increasing highway capacity through construction. However, no element
of the cost-effectiveness of deployed ITS technologies is included in
DOT's measures. In addition, while DOT collects and summarizes benefits
established by ITS studies in its ITS benefits database, and summarizes
cost estimates in its cost database, it has not highlighted benefit-
cost information on ITS technologies and has not incorporated such
information into its goal or measures. Furthermore, although DOT's cost
database may help state and local transportation officials budget for
ITS technologies they wish to deploy, such cost information is not
directly linked to benefit information. Without this linkage, the cost
information is of limited use in helping state and local transportation
officials evaluate the value of ITS investments as a tool to reduce
congestion in comparison to other alternatives.
DOT's lack of measures for the impact or cost-effectiveness of ITS
deployment makes it difficult to evaluate the overall effectiveness of
ITS and the federal investment in ITS as a strategy to reduce
congestion. However, this lack of evaluation also exists for many other
federal-aid highway programs. According to a DOT official, it is
critical to compare the benefits of ITS with the costs of
implementation, and the ITS program should allocate resources to
improving benefit-cost analyses. However, it would be difficult for DOT
to obtain the information needed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of
ITS deployment, as in many cases this information is not collected.
As we have previously reported, in general there is no requirement for
state and local governments to set goals for highway projects, nor to
use specific analytical methods such as benefit-cost analysis to choose
projects. Moreover, the federal-aid highway program does not have the
mechanisms to link funding levels with the accomplishment of specific
performance-related goals and outcomes.[Footnote 21] In addition, we
have found in previous work that such requirements would require
legislative change because the federal agencies cannot require benefit-
cost analysis as a condition of receiving highway funds.[Footnote 22]
In addition, while TEA-21 requires recipients of congressionally
designated ITS integration funds to report cost data annually and
complete self-evaluations, it does not require formal benefit-cost
analyses.[Footnote 23] In general, we found that evaluations of
outcomes of completed highway projects are typically not conducted and,
as a result, officials only have limited or anecdotal evidence of
whether projects produced the intended results. Thus, transportation
agencies miss opportunities to learn from successes and shortcomings of
past projects or to evaluate how well investment strategies are meeting
goals or priorities.[Footnote 24]
Four Case Studies Illustrate Limitations of DOT's Goal and Measures:
The status of ITS in the four metropolitan areas we visited--two that
were rated high by DOT and were therefore counted toward meeting the
ITS deployment goal and two that were rated low by DOT and therefore
were not counted toward meeting the goal--illustrate the shortfalls of
DOT's ITS deployment goal and measures. While the two metropolitan
areas we visited that were counted toward meeting the goal have both
made considerable investments in ITS technologies, both have
limitations in terms of the level of operations of deployed ITS
technologies, which may reduce their potential impact on congestion.
Officials from the two metropolitan areas we visited that were
considered not to have met the goal indicated that they had appropriate
levels of ITS given their local conditions and needs. (See app. 3 for
additional information on activities each metropolitan area has taken
to support ITS deployment.) Specifically, we found:
* The San Francisco Bay Area, which was ranked by the Texas
Transportation Institute as the fifth most congested area in
2003,[Footnote 25] was rated high by DOT in part because of its level
of ITS deployment--4,700 traffic sensing detectors on its over 2,800
freeway miles. As a result, 29 percent of the freeways featured sensing
devices spaced every 1 mile or less, and 40 percent of the freeways
featured sensing devices spaced every 2 miles or less in order to
provide local transportation agencies information on traffic data such
as speed and volume. However, about 45 percent of these devices are out
of service, reducing the ability of staff to collect traffic
data.[Footnote 26] According to DOT Resource Center's Operations
Technical Service Leader, while having about half of the traffic
detectors out of service happens in other areas, it is not typical.
* Chicago, which the Texas Transportation Institute ranked as the
fourth most congested area in 2003, was also rated high by DOT, partly
because area transportation agencies have the potential to monitor 55
percent of the area's freeway miles. A combination of traffic sensors
and management centers provide the area the ability to quickly spot
traffic problems and take appropriate action such as providing the
traveling public information on traffic conditions, alternative
transportation routes or options during special events affecting
traffic to avoid traffic delays, and dispatching appropriate officials
to clear incidents quickly to decrease delays. We found, however, that
six of the ten traffic management centers do not have any staff
dedicated to monitoring traffic conditions and that an additional
center has only one part-time staffer. Periodically, staff will go to
the centers to change message signs to alert travelers to likely
congestion due to a planned event such as a construction project or
sports game. However, without staff dedicated to monitoring traffic
conditions on a regular basis, the centers can not be used to respond
to unplanned or non-recurring incidents such as traffic accidents,
which limit congestion mitigation benefits.
* Indianapolis, which the Texas Transportation Institute ranked as the
25TH most congested city in the nation in 2003, was rated low by DOT
because of a lack of investment in ITS technologies, and therefore was
not counted toward meeting the goal. However, Indianapolis officials
stated that the current level of ITS deployment and integration meets
the area's needs, as they do not consider the area very congested, and
they do not see the need for many ITS technologies.
* Las Vegas, which the Texas Transportation Institute ranked as the
ninth most congested city in the nation in 2003, was also rated low by
DOT, partly because in order for a metropolitan area to be rated
medium, it must meet the threshold of having either at least 20 percent
of its freeways covered by ITS technologies or at least 33 percent of
its transit covered by ITS technologies (to be rated high it would have
to meet these thresholds plus additional thresholds). However, Las
Vegas transportation officials told us that the metropolitan area has
experienced high levels of congestion on the arterial roadways and
relatively low levels of congestion on freeways. Therefore, rather than
focusing on freeways or transit, transportation agencies in the Las
Vegas metropolitan area have made considerable investments in deploying
and integrating ITS technologies on their arterial roadways and only
recently have begun investing in ITS technologies for freeways. Las
Vegas transportation officials said that this strategy made the most
sense for their specific local conditions.
Studies Have Found Positive Impacts of ITS Deployment Depend on
Effective Operations, but Few Have Included Cost-Effectiveness
Analyses:
Studies evaluating ITS deployment have found improvements in
congestion, throughput of traffic (number of vehicles accommodated on
highways), safety, environmental quality, and traveler
behavior.[Footnote 27] Studies also have found that the existence and
level of most benefits depends on operating the ITS technology
effectively given local conditions. Few of the studies analyzed the
benefits of ITS investments in terms of the costs, information that
could help state and local governments make sound investment decisions.
Studies Indicate ITS Deployment Can Provide Benefits:
A number of studies show that ITS applications have provided some
benefits either nationally or locally, including improvements in
congestion, throughput of traffic, safety, environmental quality, or
traveler behavior. Although congestion levels are high, ITS
technologies are estimated to limit the increase in congestion. For
example, the Texas Transportation Institute, a leading transportation
research institution, estimated that in 2003, congestion caused 3.7
billion hours of travel delay in 85 urban areas.[Footnote 28] However,
the study also estimated that ramp metering, incident management,
traffic signal coordination, and arterial access management combined
reduced delay in 2003 in the same urban areas by 9 percent--336 million
hours, leading to a $5.6 billion reduction in annual costs due to
reduced fuel consumption and hours of delay. The study also estimates
that if ITS or similar operational treatments were deployed on all
major freeways and streets in the 85 urban areas, it would reduce the
delay by 15 percent. Thus, although delay due to congestion is
increasing, this increase is limited by ITS deployment.
Many of the studies in DOT's database focus on examining the impacts of
particular ITS technologies deployed in particular locations. For
example, one study measured the impacts of a regional system in the
Cincinnati-Northern Kentucky metropolitan areas that uses traffic
monitoring technologies to detect incidents and provide traveler
information. The study, which measured the impacts of the system on
several factors such as traveler behavior, safety, and environmental
quality, found that of 375 survey respondents in the area, 56 percent
changed their morning routes based upon the availability of traffic
information provided by the system. In addition, modeling efforts
estimated that the system had contributed to a 3.2 percent reduction in
fatalities by responding to incidents earlier, and a 3.6 to 4.7 percent
reduction in vehicle emissions. Table 1 provides examples of study
findings related to several commonly studied impacts of ITS deployment.
Table 1: Examples of Deployment Impacts from Our Review of ITS Studies:
Impacts: Congestion;
Examples:
* Deployment of E-Z Pass, an electronic tolling system, on the New
Jersey Turnpike reduced delay for all vehicles at toll plazas by 85
percent;
* Adaptive traffic signal control reduced travel times at several
intersections in Tucson, Ariz. by 7.9 percent and delay by 17.9
percent.[A].
Impacts: Throughput;
Examples:
* A study in Minneapolis-St. Paul found that during peak traffic
conditions, freeway throughput decreased by an average of 14 percent
during the period that they turned off the ramp meters.
Impacts: Safety;
Examples:
* Evaluations of the Maryland based freeway and incident management
program, known as CHART, showed a potential reduction in secondary
incidents by 1,267 based on reported incidents;
* An integrated freeway and incident management system in San Antonio
reduced the average annual secondary crash risk for all travelers by
2.8 percent.[A].
Impacts: Environmental quality;
Examples:
* Computerized operations of 40 traffic signals in the Tysons Corner
area of Virginia decreased the total annual emissions for carbon
monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and volatile oxygen compounds by 134,611
kilograms. In addition, annual fuel consumption improved by 9 percent,
thus an estimated savings of about $1.48 million;
* Traffic signal coordination among two jurisdictions in Phoenix, Ariz.
indicated benefits of a 1.6 percent reduction in fuel consumption.
Impacts: Traveler behavior;
Examples:
* Over 600 users in the Seattle area ranked the state-sponsored
traveler information Web site as their most useful source of traffic
information. In addition, most of the respondents (88 to 94.8 percent)
reported they used the Web site to decide among alternative routes,
when to start a trip, and had reliable indications of how long a trip
would take;
* In the DC metro area, a simulation model estimated that commuters who
used traveler information arrive on time and within 15 minutes of the
target arrival time 79 percent of the time. Those not using the
traveler information arrive on time and within 15 minutes of the target
42 percent of the time.[A].
Source: GAO analysis of studies gathered by DOT.
Notes: Examples in this table are not necessarily representative of
what would happen with a similar deployment in another location.
[A] These examples report on potential improvements using estimated
data, rather than actual improvements using empirical data.
[End of table]
Anecdotally, several state and local officials we spoke with agreed
that ITS applications have improved congestion in their areas. For
example, Las Vegas officials stated the FAST program, an integrated
traffic management system that adapts traffic signal plans to real-time
conditions, had definitely improved traffic congestion on the Las Vegas
arterials. One official stated that without the FAST system, the city
of Las Vegas would be "shut down," especially during events such as New
Year's Eve, NASCAR weekends, and major boxing events.
Studies Suggest That ITS Benefits Depend on Effectively Operating ITS
Technologies to Meet Local Conditions:
The studies in DOT's benefits database also suggest that the existence
and level of benefits from ITS deployment depend on adapting the
deployment to local conditions and monitoring the effect in order to
make operating adjustments. For example, as discussed earlier, the
National Transportation Operations Coalition recently found that across
the country traffic signals are not operating as efficiently as they
could be, resulting in unnecessary delay to travelers. A benefit
database study of traffic signal timing in North Seattle found that a
single signal-timing plan could not satisfy all traffic conditions. The
study suggested that more benefits could be expected if signal systems
were implemented so that they would respond to traffic levels based on
demand and weather conditions. For example, agencies could develop
longer timing plans when demand is heavy and shorter cycle lengths for
light demand conditions. One researcher we talked to also emphasized
that to effectively deploy traffic signal control systems, signal
timing plans should be regularly adjusted to respond to changes in
traffic patterns surrounding the intersection.[Footnote 29]
Similarly, a study on deploying ramp meters on Detroit area freeways
found that effectively operating the meters to maximize benefits meant
using the meters only during specific traffic conditions. The study
concluded that using ramp meters helped reduce congestion during major
events or traffic incidents when traffic demand or congestion was high.
During average conditions, however, the study found that the benefits
of ramp metering in terms of moderating the flow of traffic on the
freeway would not outweigh the delays on the entrance ramps and
arterials leading to the freeway. The study found that by turning off
metered ramps in the absence of major events or incidents, corridorwide
delay would improve.
Few ITS Studies Include Analysis of ITS Projects' Cost Effectiveness:
Most of the ITS studies we reviewed did not include information on the
cost effectiveness of ITS deployment, such as benefit-cost analyses.
Analysis of benefits in relation to costs is essential to helping local
decision makers determine whether and when ITS is a good investment. As
we have shown in previous work, careful decisions need to be made to
ensure that transportation investments maximize the benefits of each
public dollar invested. Moreover, according to a recent study, compared
to other highway projects, such as highway construction projects, many
ITS applications have distinct cost structures and life cycles--for
example, relatively low initial deployment costs but ongoing
operational costs that do not apply to many construction projects--that
need to be explicitly described and evaluated in order to determine the
benefits and costs of ITS technologies compared to other
alternatives.[Footnote 30]
Thirty-three of the 38 studies we reviewed (87 percent) did not measure
benefits in relation to total dollars invested. The five studies that
did include an evaluation of benefits reported that the benefits of the
ITS deployment examined were greater than the costs.
Several Barriers Limit the Widespread Deployment of ITS:
Transportation officials in the four metropolitan areas we visited
identified four barriers that our previous work and DOT officials
acknowledge limit the deployment and integration of ITS in metropolitan
areas. These barriers include the limited appeal of ITS as an option
for congestion mitigation, the difficulty of obtaining funding for
implementing and operating ITS technologies along with confusion about
the fact that ITS operational costs are eligible for federal funding, a
lack of technical training in deploying and operating ITS technologies,
and a lack of technical standards to help ensure that ITS technologies
will be able to be integrated with other ITS systems within and across
metropolitan and rural areas. These barriers have limited the amount of
ITS deployed and therefore have likely limited the impact of ITS on
mitigating congestion on our nation's roads.
ITS Projects Are Sometimes Seen as a Less Appealing Investment Option
for Mitigating Congestion:
According to transportation officials we spoke with, one barrier to ITS
deployment is that in light of a high number of potential projects
competing for limited transportation funds, system enhancements such as
ITS are sometimes less appealing than transportation investment options
that improve the physical condition of the roads.[Footnote 31] Demand
for transportation funding usually exceeds the supply of these funds.
For example, in the San Francisco Bay area, the MPO estimates that it
needs an additional $419 million above its available funding to fully
deploy the area's regional operations programs--including ITS
applications. Furthermore, state and local governments face difficult
decisions regarding the allocation of their highway and transit funds,
especially when federal and state budget deficits exist. Within these
funding constraints, transportation officials must prioritize and make
trade-offs between projects that add new or preserve infrastructure and
those that enhance the existing infrastructure, such as ITS. Thus, ITS
must compete with other highway investments that add new infrastructure
or preserve existing roads.[Footnote 32] In previous work, we found
that state and regional transportation decision makers are increasingly
giving priority to highway investments that preserve the existing
infrastructure.[Footnote 33]
In addition, ITS applications sometimes have limited public and
political appeal. We have reported in prior work that public input and
political considerations shape transportation investment decisions.
However, unlike capital improvements that build or expand new roads and
those that preserve existing roads, the benefits of traffic operations
improvements such as ITS are not always visible to the public.
According to DOT officials, deteriorating roadways, like those with
potholes and other physical problems, affect the public's ability to
drive on the road. Conversely, many ITS applications that are not
operating well or need maintenance, like nonworking message signs or
delayed traffic signals, do not necessarily affect the public's ability
to drive on the road in an obvious way. As a result, drivers may not
realize that a failing ITS application could be contributing to
congestion. One state responded to this public perception issue by
ordering a shut down study so that levels of congestion with and
without ITS could be compared. In 2000, the Minnesota legislature
passed a bill to study the effectiveness of ramp meters due to public
questioning of the effectiveness of ramp meters on freeways. The state
undertook a study that demonstrated the effectiveness of the ramp
meters and increased public support for the ramp meters.[Footnote 34]
The state DOT conducted two, 5-week studies--one with the ramp meters
in operation, the other without--and estimated that ramp meters
annually saved 25,121 hours in travel time, 2,583,620 hours of
unexpected delay, and 5.5 million gallons of fuel. Consequently,
commuter support for ramp meters significantly increased.[Footnote 35]
However, in the absence of such studies, the public may not realize the
potential benefits of ITS deployment and therefore may not support them
as much as the more visually obvious benefits of such things as
improved road surface conditions.
Moreover, several officials in the metropolitan areas we visited agreed
that investments in system "enhancements," such as ITS, are not as
politically appealing as expanding roadways. Specifically, Chicago and
San Francisco transportation officials stated that since ITS
applications do not usually offer groundbreaking ceremonies, which
offer positive media attention, politicians are generally not motivated
to support ITS projects.
In its role of encouraging interest in ITS, DOT has taken steps to
counter this lack of appeal for ITS technologies, such as establishing
the benefits database we previously described. In addition, according
to DOT officials, DOT division staff advertise the benefits of ITS or
suggest it as a way to mitigate congestion to state and local
transportation officials. Furthermore, DOT officials are planning to
develop lessons learned information from studies of ITS technologies to
share with states and localities on how to implement effective ITS
applications. This is important information to begin disseminating as
we found that DOT's benefits database did not consistently provide
information on lessons learned for maximizing the benefits of ITS, even
when that information was included as part of a study summarized in the
database. For example, a study of the impacts of call boxes in Georgia
provided lessons-learned information on reducing maintenance costs to
improve the cost-effectiveness of the deployment, but the summary in
the ITS benefit database did not include this information. DOT
officials acknowledge that lessons learned information is needed to
provide practitioners with helpful advice on how to cost effectively
deploy ITS. Consequently, DOT plans to unveil a new database in
September 2005 that will provide lessons learned information from the
ITS studies and other sources.
Although DOT has undertaken these efforts to make ITS more appealing,
DOT's ability to affect state and local decisions to deploy ITS has
been limited by its inability to use funding incentives to encourage
ITS. As we previously noted, although TEA-21's ITS integration program
included funding to help state and local governments integrate ITS
technologies, Congress has fully designated this funding. Moreover, the
extent to which DOT's benefits database is helping to counter the
limited public appeal of ITS deployment is unclear. In 2004, we found
that although useful, impact analysis such as benefit-cost information
does not play a decisive role in many investment decisions.[Footnote 36]
Lack of Operational Funding and Misunderstanding of Federal Funding
Policy Are Barriers to Deployment:
Another barrier to deploying and operating ITS technologies, according
to metropolitan transportation officials, is that once an ITS
application has been deployed, state and local transportation agencies
do not always fund operations on an ongoing basis, in light of other
priorities for transportation investments. As previously mentioned,
state and local governments face difficult decisions regarding the
allocation of their highway and transit funds, especially when state
and local governments face budget deficits. At times, funding for
ongoing operations is not fully available. In the San Francisco Bay
area, for example, the MPO estimates that it needs an additional $419
million above its available funding to fully deploy the area's regional
operations programs--including ITS applications. Similarly, although
the Chicago area funded the establishment of 10 transportation
management centers, they have operators in 3 of the centers and a part-
time operator in a fourth center due to a lack of operational funding.
Finally, Indianapolis transportation officials said that operations
were one of the first areas cut during budget crunches.
In addition to limited funds in state and local operation budgets,
several state and local officials were not aware that they could use
federal transportation funds, such as Surface Transportation Program
funds, to operate and maintain ITS technologies. Operating costs for
traffic monitoring, management, and control systems such as integrated
traffic control systems, incident management programs, and traffic
control centers are eligible for federal reimbursement from National
Highway System and Surface Transportation Program funding.[Footnote 37]
In addition, for projects located in air quality nonattainment and
maintenance areas, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement
Program funds may be used for operating costs for a 3-year period--as
long as the funded systems measurably demonstrate reductions in traffic
delays. The lack of understanding about the availability of federal
funding for operations has at times led to poor financial decision
making. In San Francisco, for example, FHWA officials told us that the
state and local officials' lack of knowledge that federal funds could
be used to operate and manage ITS technologies had led some agencies to
use federal funds to replace their technology systems at much higher
costs than would be needed to operate and maintain their existing
technologies.
DOT officials are aware of this lack of understanding and have taken
steps to inform state transportation agencies about the eligibility of
ITS operational expenses for federal funding. DOT provides guidance on
its Web site indicating that federal-aid policies allow federal
assistance to be used for virtually any operational costs. DOT has
issued policy manuals to its division offices to pass along to state
officials that explain federal funds can be used for operational
expenses. However, the misconception that federal funds can be used
only for ITS capital expenses still exists in some locations. DOT
officials believe they are making progress in educating transportation
officials about funding for operating costs and believe that
understanding will grow as transportation departments place more
emphasis on operating roadways.
ITS Deployment Is Hampered by a Lack of Technical Expertise:
According to metropolitan transportation officials and as we previously
reported in a 1997 report, another barrier state and local
transportation agencies face when selecting and implementing ITS is a
lack of appropriate skills and knowledge needed for selecting and
operating ITS technologies.[Footnote 38] This lack of skills exists
both in transportation agencies and, according to transportation
officials in one metropolitan area, in consultants that agencies hired
to help them purchase and deploy ITS technologies. According to DOT
officials, it is often hard to find people who are knowledgeable in
both of two fields that are important for fully understanding ITS
applications--traffic systems and electrical engineering. Consequently,
some transportation agencies hire contractors to perform some of the
technology functions associated with ITS. In Las Vegas, however,
transportation officials told us that consultants lacked needed skills
as well. As a result, localities may face difficulties selecting and
procuring appropriate systems for their areas. For example, according
to an FHWA official, a lack of business knowledge led a San Francisco
Bay Area agency to lease rather than purchase telecommunications lines
needed for transmitting data from roadway sensors--a decision that
ended up costing the agency money in the long run.
According to DOT officials, DOT has taken numerous actions to address
the lack of technical expertise; however, external factors have limited
DOT's ability to resolve this issue. DOT provides technical assistance
through FHWA. FHWA divisions in each state work with state and local
transportation agencies to provide needed technical assistance. FHWA's
resource center offices are staffed with technical experts in various
fields including operations and ITS and thus provide state and local
officials across the country with more specific technical expertise and
support when needed.[Footnote 39] In addition, FHWA headquarters office
offers a number of additional resources such as training programs,
guidance documents, technical assistance, and a Peer-to-Peer program
that facilitate the exchange of technical expertise across different
locations. Finally, DOT also has a professional capacity-building
program that is designed to help state and local transportation
officials gain the expertise necessary to install ITS applications. In
addition to DOT training, several universities have developed programs
to provide intelligent transportation education to develop the skills
needed in the ITS industry. Both the University of Michigan and the
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University have developed
programs, as has the Consortium for Intelligent Transportation
Education housed at the University of Maryland. DOT officials believe,
however, that the lack of technical expertise will remain until an
institutional change in transportation agencies occurs--a change that
increases emphasis on operations.
ITS System Integration Is Limited by Delayed Technical Standards:
Another barrier that has limited the deployment and integration of ITS
is that state and local decision makers do not have enough of the
technical standards needed to select ITS equipment that can integrate
with other systems.[Footnote 40] Having technical standards is
important because purchasers who adhere to the standards can avoid
being locked into proprietary systems that cannot integrate with those
of other manufacturers and for which replacement equipment or service
may not be available if the vendor goes out of business. According to
transportation officials we spoke with, in some cases, the lack of
standards may have discouraged state and local decision makers to
invest in ITS technologies; in other cases, the lack of ITS standards
may have led to the deployment of ITS technologies that could not
easily be integrated with other technologies within or across
metropolitan or rural areas.
In each of the metropolitan areas we visited, state and local
transportation officials stated that DOT has facilitated the issuance
of standards slowly and that this has limited the confidence officials
have in the technology they select. For example, an official in Chicago
told us that the lack of standards has resulted in the agency not
knowing if it is purchasing quality ITS applications. In another
example, a San Francisco official stated that the slow completion of
the standards development process at the national level caused
transportation officials to pick a standard in the draft stage that
they hope will have the ability to connect with future ITS deployment
in the area.
According to DOT, although it has worked to facilitate the issuance of
technical standards, technology has been developing faster than the
SDOs that DOT works with can handle. Furthermore, the issuance of
standards by SDOs is done voluntarily, and there is no private-sector
market influencing speedy issuance--the SDOs do not have a profit
incentive in issuing standards. DOT has accelerated development of over
100 standards and identified 17 standards critical to ensure ITS
operability across the country. However, according to DOT officials,
standard setting is a difficult, consensus driven, and time-consuming
process.
Conclusions:
Generally, the promise of ITS for managing congestion has fallen short.
Although DOT established a vision to build an intelligent
transportation infrastructure across the United States to save time and
lives and improve the quality of life for Americans, DOT's deployment
goal ends in 2005. Studies show that when implemented properly, ITS
technologies can reduce congestion, as well as lead to other benefits
such as improved safety and reduced emissions harmful to the
environment. However, transportation agencies have been slow to adopt
and deploy ITS technologies, facing many barriers along the way.
Funding for ITS deployments, particularly for ongoing operations and
maintenance costs, is critical to ensuring that ITS deployments are
used effectively. However, such funding continues to be a problem for
state and local governments. In addition, state and local
transportation agencies do not always consider ITS when developing
their transportation plans. Moreover, DOT does not have clear
information on the extent to which areas have deployed ITS to meet
their particular needs, nor does it have clear information on the
operating status of ITS where it has been deployed. Limitations of
DOT's efforts in measuring the deployment of ITS technologies, among
other things, have reduced its ability to help state and local
governments invest strategically in ITS.
Successful ITS deployment depends on selecting the appropriate level
and types of ITS for the area, effectively integrating these
technologies, and committing the necessary resources to operate and
maintain them. We recognize that DOT has not been able to influence
deployment through funding, and state and local governments are free to
choose the extent to which they direct other federal highway funds to
ITS. However, DOT has opportunities to assist metropolitan areas in
developing appropriate, efficient, and cost effective transportation
systems which include ITS. Although analyses of a project's cost
effectiveness often do not drive transportation investment decisions--
many factors, political as well as other, influence project selections-
-such analyses should be part of the decision making process. And
impact analysis for all highway projects, including ITS projects, would
help decision makers view all tools together and make well-reasoned
decisions about investment of their limited funds to develop the best
possible transportation system. In addition, as the Secretary of
Transportation indicated in 1996, providing national guidance is
important to ensure ITS deployment. Nationally tracking measures for
ITS deployment and operations would continue to support awareness of
progress toward improved mobility and help states and local areas
considering ITS determine how they could deploy and operate ITS
technologies to help mitigate congestion and realize other benefits.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
We recommend that the Secretary of Transportation take the following
three actions:
* revise measures for ITS deployment to incorporate local needs and
operational status for deployed ITS technologies;
* develop new strategies to better advertise the availability of
federal funds for operating ITS technologies; and:
* encourage cost-effectiveness analyses and their use in transportation
planning and decision making.
Agency Comments:
In commenting on a draft of this report, officials from DOT's ITS Joint
Program Office and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Transportation Policy provided comments through the Office of the
Secretary's audit liaison generally concurring with the report and
agreeing to consider the recommendations. DOT officials provided
technical clarifications and information, which we incorporated in the
report, as appropriate. The officials also provided general comments
about the ITS deployment goal.
Although DOT officials did not comment on the recommendation to revise
and update the goal and measures for ITS deployment, the officials said
that they do not plan on updating the ITS deployment goal after it
expires in 2005. In addition, officials noted that SAFETEA-LU repealed
the ITS integration deployment program. However, ITS Joint Program
Office officials have indicated that they intend to continue to track
ITS deployment. In the absence of an ITS integration deployment
program, we revised our recommendation so that it no longer calls for
revising and updating the goal for ITS deployment. However, we continue
to recommend that DOT improve its ITS deployment measures to obtain
clear and accurate information on ITS deployment that will support
DOT's efforts to help states and local areas select, implement,
operate, and maintain ITS technologies to address increasing congestion
and other transportation needs in their areas.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional
committees and to the Secretary of Transportation. We will also make
copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will
be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at [Hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-2834 or [Hyperlink, heckerj@gao.gov]. Contact
points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs
may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major
contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV.
Signed by:
JayEtta Z. Hecker:
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:
[End of section]
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To address our first objective--to describe the federal role in ITS
deployment and the goals and measures for the federal ITS program--we
reviewed transportation legislation, DOT performance plans, and other
documents related to ITS and the federal role. We reviewed TEA-21 goals
for the ITS deployment incentives program. We also reviewed the
Secretary of Transportation's 1996 speech describing his vision for ITS
deployment and met with DOT and FHWA officials to clarify the federal
role in deploying ITS. Although ITS technologies can be used for many
purposes, including highway safety, we focused this analysis on the
role of ITS for mitigating congestion.
To address our second objective--to develop information about the
progress of ITS deployment toward DOT's deployment goal and DOT's
measures--we reviewed reports that describe DOT's deployment program
and its methodology for rating metropolitan areas. We interviewed ITS
officials who track deployment of ITS technologies in over 75
metropolitan areas. To determine progress toward the 2005 goal, we
summarized ratings from DOT's deployment reports and deployment and
integration tracking database--which identify the number of
metropolitan areas with high, medium, and low ratings--and obtained
rating information for the period of 1997 to 2004.[Footnote 41]
To assess the reliability of the deployment and integration tracking
database, we interviewed officials from DOT's Joint Program Office who
are knowledgeable about how data are collected, analyzed, and reported,
and we collected deployment data from the state and local
transportation agencies that we visited to compare it with the data
used in the database and DOT deployment reports. In addition, in 2000,
the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) reviewed and reported on
the data quality of the ITS deployment and integration tracking
database. BTS noted that the database frequently had been monitored and
improved upon. The report found some reporting errors and made
recommendations for additional improvements. DOT implemented some of
the recommendations. DOT has not conducted any subsequent quality
reviews. Based on interviews with DOT officials and analysis of the
data, we determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for our
purposes.
To discuss DOT's measures for assessing the status of ITS deployment in
metropolitan areas, we interviewed DOT officials and reviewed reports
that explain the methodology DOT uses to rate the metropolitan areas
(high, medium, and low) in terms of deployment and integration of ITS
technologies. (See app. 2.) We reviewed the Secretary's 1996 speech,
recent DOT performance plans, and GAO reports that relate to impact
analysis. We also interviewed federal, state, and local transportation
officials from our four case study locations about their experiences
with ITS and the ITS technologies deployed in each area. (For more
information about site selection and agencies we contacted, see
discussion later in this section.) We did not review the
appropriateness of the rating that DOT had assigned to the 75
metropolitan areas. However, we did compare the overall rating that DOT
assigned to the four metropolitan areas we studied in depth with the
information we gathered from our interviews with transportation and
planning officials in those areas.
To address our third objective--to identify the impacts of ITS
deployment--we reviewed 38 studies issued since 2000 from our site
visits and DOT's ITS benefits database, a repository of academic and
government papers evaluating the deployment of ITS technologies in U.S.
and international locations, including any cost effectiveness analysis
included in the studies. We asked officials at each of the four
locations if they documented the results of their ITS deployments. Las
Vegas and San Francisco had conducted evaluations of their ITS
deployments while Chicago and Indianapolis had not. Las Vegas conducted
two evaluations for a traffic-signal-timing system on two major
arterial roads. San Francisco conducted three evaluations for ramp
meters deployed on two freeways in the metropolitan area. Therefore, we
collected five studies from our site visits. We also reviewed 33 recent
evaluations from the ITS benefits database.
In order to summarize the benefits of ITS deployment on congestion, we
reviewed those studies that relate to mobility and capacity/throughput.
DOT used our criteria to develop a list of 76 studies. We further
refined our review to studies published after 2000 that involved
deployments in the U.S., ending up with 33 evaluations in total. DOT
provided us with copies of the evaluations. We did not assess the
potential benefits of any one technology, such as open road electronic
tolling, on the nation's transportation system.
In order to assess the reliability of the benefits database, we
interviewed the DOT manager responsible for the database about data
sources, data entry, and quality control procedures. We assessed the
database summaries by comparing them with the complete evaluations. We
found that they generally contained accurate information regarding the
location of the deployment, the type of ITS technology, and the impacts
of the ITS deployment. We determined that the benefits database was
sufficiently reliable for our purpose of identifying evaluation
reports.
We also reviewed the 38 evaluations to ensure that findings from the
studies were based on sound methodologies. A DOT contractor reviewed
the studies for methodological soundness before including them in DOT's
benefits database. We also reviewed the studies we selected from the
DOT benefit database to ensure that these studies were based on sound
methodologies and determined these studies were sufficiently reliable
for describing actual and potential impacts of ITS technologies. We
created a data collection instrument to systematically collect
information from each evaluation we selected, including information
about the evaluation design, expected and documented benefits, and
inclusion of cost information. We then compiled and analyzed the
information from the data collection instruments. We determined that
the results contained in the studies were sufficiently reliable for our
purpose of describing what is known about the impacts of ITS
deployment.
To address our final objective--to identify factors that limit
deployment and use of ITS--we used a case study approach and
interviewed federal, state, and local transportation officials about
barriers to deploying and maintaining ITS technologies. We also used
case study information to illustrate limitations of DOT's deployment
integration rating measurement approach. We used level of congestion
and DOT's integrated deployment rating to select four congested
metropolitan areas--two areas that DOT has determined have deployed ITS
to a great extent and two areas that DOT has determined have deployed
ITS to a lesser extent--to study in depth.[Footnote 42] We selected
areas with either high or low levels of integrated deployment in order
to try to capture information that could explain the different levels
of deployment in those locations. For example, we were interested in
finding out whether such areas encounter similar or different barriers
to deployment.
To identify congested metropolitan areas, we applied DOT's integrated-
deployment congestion rating to the largest 75 metropolitan areas and
sorted them according to congestion level. DOT measures congestion as
the percent of travel under congested conditions. We used the Texas
Transportation Institute 2004 Urban Mobility Report--which ranked
congestion under DOT's definition during our selection process--to
identify congested metropolitan areas. The 2004 Urban Mobility Report
used 2002 travel data to rank congestion levels. We then identified a
list of congested metropolitan areas with varying levels of deployment.
In our deliberations about which high deployment area to visit, we took
into account practical considerations such as proximity of metropolitan
area to the state capital. We selected Chicago and San Francisco, which
were ranked fourth and fifth respectively in terms of congestion and
which DOT rated as high in integrated deployment and Las Vegas and
Indianapolis, which were ranked 15TH and 26TH respectively in terms of
congestion and rated by DOT as low in integrated deployment. We
determined that Las Vegas is the most congested location that DOT rated
low, and Indianapolis is the second most congested location rated low.
After we visited these locations, the Texas Transportation Institute
issued its 2005 Urban Mobility Report using 2003 travel data to rank
congestion levels. In that report, Chicago and San Francisco were
ranked fourth and fifth respectively in terms of congestion, and Las
Vegas and Indianapolis were ranked ninth and 25TH respectively.
We developed a semistructured data collection instrument to use during
interviews with transportation and planning officials in the
metropolitan areas. The data collection instrument included questions
about local transportation challenges, ITS decision-makers, ITS
deployments, barriers and facilitators to deploying ITS, and future
deployment. We obtained a list of contacts from the FHWA division
offices and identified a group of state and local officials involved in
ITS deployment in the metropolitan area. In each metropolitan area, we
interviewed officials from the FHWA division office, the state
department of transportation ITS office, state department of
transportation district engineer, metropolitan planning organization,
city department of transportation, and transit authority. (A complete
list of agencies we contacted is included at the end of this section.)
We conducted our site visits between November 2004 and March 2005. We
conducted our work from October 2004 through August 2005 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Organizations Contacted:
Department of Transportation:
Federal Highway Administration Operations Office:
ITS Joint Program Office:
Chicago Metropolitan Area:
FHWA National Resource Center (Olympia Fields, Illinois):
FHWA Illinois Division:
Illinois Department of Transportation, ITS program office:
Illinois Department of Transportation, District 1:
Chicago Area Metropolitan Planning Organization/Chicago Area
Transportation Study (CATS):
City of Chicago:
Illinois State Toll Highway Authority:
Regional Transportation Authority:
Indianapolis Metropolitan Area:
FHWA Indiana Division:
Indiana Department of Transportation, ITS program office:
Indiana Department of Transportation, Greenfield District:
Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization:
Indianapolis Department of Public Works:
Indianapolis Public Transportation Corporation (IndyGo):
Las Vegas Metropolitan Area:
FHWA Nevada Division:
Nevada Department of Transportation, Operations:
Nevada Department of Transportation, District 1:
Regional Transportation Commission/Freeway and Arterial System of
Transportation Organization (FAST):
Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada:
San Francisco Metropolitan Area:
FHWA National Resource Center:
FHWA California Division:
California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS), ITS program office:
CALTRANS, District 4:
San Francisco Department of Traffic:
San Francisco Municipal Railway (MUNI):
Metropolitan Transportation Commission:
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART):
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority:
Alameda County Congestion Management Agency:
Highway Associations:
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials:
American Highway Users Alliance:
International Bridge, Tunnel and Turnpike Association:
Intelligent Transportation Society of America:
Other:
Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois:
University of Illinois, Chicago, Illinois:
University of California, Berkeley, California:
[End of section]
Appendix II: Summary of DOT's Deployment Tracking Methodology:
In 1996, Secretary Peña established the goal that 75 of the largest
metropolitan areas would be outfitted with a complete intelligent
transportation infrastructure by 2005.[Footnote 43] DOT tracks the
level of deployment and integration and reports on the progress toward
this goal periodically in its deployment progress report. Metropolitan
areas are rated as high, medium, or low in terms of deployment and
integration of ITS technology. DOT considers any metropolitan area
having a high or medium rating as contributing to fulfilling the goal.
At the end of 2004, DOT rated 28 areas high, 34 medium, and 13 low.
In order to track progress toward this goal, DOT set up the
metropolitan ITS deployment tracking methodology. The tracking system
includes data about nine specific ITS components, including freeway
management, incident management, arterial management, emergency
management, transit management, electronic toll collection, transit
electronic fare payment, highway-rail intersections, and regional
multimodal traveler information. DOT created a set of measurable
indicators of progress toward the overall goal and created nine data
collection instruments (surveys) that correspond to the ITS systems.
DOT contracted with Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) to collect the
data from the entities in the 75 metropolitan areas associated with ITS
deployment. These entities included transit agencies, toll authorities,
municipal governments, and state transportation departments, among
others. ORNL sent out the first deployment and integration surveys in
1997, which represented the baseline as of the end of fiscal year 1997.
The data were initially collected by a fax/mail survey, which later
became a Web-based survey. After 2000, ORNL surveyed all metropolitan
areas on a biennial basis and completed a telephone interview with the
metropolitan areas with a low rating in the interim years to determine
whether their rating should be increased. It completed the 2004 survey
in September 2004 and published the results in July 2005. According to
DOT officials, the 2005 survey was released in July 2005, and was a Web-
based rather than telephone survey. The 2005 data will be available in
2006.
From the survey questions, DOT compiles data about the level of
deployment of ITS systems and the level of integration. To measure ITS
deployment, DOT created five ITS component categories (collapsing the
nine components mentioned above into five categories) and nine
component indicators. For example, an indicator of the arterial
management component is the percent of signalized intersections under
computerized control. In order to assign a rating for deployment, DOT
created threshold values for the ITS component indicators. (See table
2.) For example, the threshold value for the percent computerized
signalized intersections is 33 percent. DOT then assigns a rating of
high, medium, and low for deployment depending on how many thresholds
the metropolitan area exceeded. An area is rated high in component
deployment if it exceeds the threshold value for at least one of the
indicators in each of the five components. An area is rated medium if
it exceeds the threshold value for freeway management/incident
management or transit management/electronic fare payment and at least
one other component. An area is rated low in component deployment if it
exceeds the threshold value for one or fewer components.
Table 2: DOT's Deployment Component Indicators and Threshold Values:
ITS components: Freeway management/incident management;
Component indicators:
* Percent freeway miles under electronic surveillance;
* Percent freeway miles with freeway service patrols;
* Percent freeway miles with closed circuit TV (CCTV);
Threshold values: Greater than or equal to 20 percent.
ITS components: Transit management/electronic fare payment;
Component indicators:
* Percent buses equipped with automated vehicle location;
* Percent buses equipped with electronic fare payment;
Threshold values: Greater than or equal to 33 percent.
ITS components: Arterial management;
Component indicators:
* Percent signalized intersections under computerized control;
Threshold values: Greater than or equal to 33 percent.
ITS components: Regional multimodal traveler information;
Component indicators:
* Percent geographic coverage of traveler information from freeway
electronic surveillance and freeway CCTV cameras;
Threshold values: Greater than or equal to 10 percent.
ITS components: Emergency management services;
Component indicators:
* Percent emergency vehicles operating under computer- aided-dispatch
(CAD);
Threshold values: Greater than or equal to 33 percent.
Source: DOT.
[End of table]
To measure the level of integration, DOT defined a set of links
involving three major organizations that operate the infrastructure--
state governments that manage freeway management and incident
management components; local governments that manage most arterial
management components; and public transit authorities that manage the
transit management component. DOT created integration indicators about
how agencies connect, like sharing traffic condition information with
other agencies, and assigns a value greater than zero for any
integration indicator when a link is present. DOT then rates the
metropolitan area according to how many links are present. An area is
rated high if all three links are present; medium if any two out of
three links are present; and low if one or fewer links are present.
To measure the level of integrated deployment, DOT combines the
component classification and the integration classification into a
single classification. For example, a metropolitan area which DOT rated
as high in ITS components and high in integration, will be rated as
high overall. (See table 3.)
Table 3: DOT's Integrated Deployment Classification Scheme:
Component classification: High;
Integration classification: High;
Combined classification: High.
Component classification: High;
Integration classification: Medium;
Combined classification: Medium.
Component classification: High;
Integration classification: Low;
Combined classification: Medium.
Component classification: Medium;
Integration classification: High;
Combined classification: High.
Component classification: Medium;
Integration classification: Medium;
Combined classification: Medium.
Component classification: Medium;
Integration classification: Low;
Combined classification: Low.
Component classification: Low;
Integration classification: High;
Combined classification: Medium.
Component classification: Low;
Integration classification: Medium;
Combined classification: Medium.
Component classification: Low;
Integration classification: Low;
Combined classification: Low.
Source: DOT.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Metropolitan Area Case Studies:
We studied four metropolitan areas that were among the 75 metropolitan
areas included in DOT's deployment database to help identify barriers
to deployment and use of ITS technologies that address congestion and
help assess DOT's deployment measures.[Footnote 44] We visited two
metropolitan areas (Chicago, Illinois, and San Francisco, California)
that DOT rated as having a high level of integrated deployment and two
areas (Las Vegas, Nevada, and Indianapolis, Indiana) that DOT rated as
having a low level of ITS integrated deployment. The officials we
interviewed and documents we received provided detailed information on
each area's transportation challenges, the extent to which the areas
were using and planned to deploy different types of ITS technologies,
and the factors that influenced ITS deployment and use in their areas.
We were also able to observe the extent to which the two areas with
more ITS deployed were operating their existing systems. In Las Vegas
and Indianapolis, however, we did not observe much in terms of
operations, likely because of the limited deployment in those areas.
(See app. 1 for details on our scope and methodology for our case study
selections.)
Chicago, Illinois:
Level of Congestion:
In 2003, Chicago was the fourth most congested area in the nation;
commuters spent 42 percent of their travel time in congested
conditions. Chicago travelers that year on average spent 58 hours
delayed in traffic costing the area over $4.2 billion in lost wages and
wasted fuel--about 150 million gallons.
Transportation System:
The Chicago metropolitan planning area consists of seven counties
encompassing a population of about 8.1 million in 2000. The population
is expected to reach 9.8 million by 2030. Seven interstates enter the
Chicago region. In 2002, 20.5 million vehicle trips were made daily on
the area's 24,092 miles of interstates, freeways, and principal and
minor arterial roads, and an additional 1.5 million daily trips were
made on transit systems--Chicago has both rail and bus service. In
2003, over 165.7 million vehicle miles were traveled on area roadways
daily.
Transportation Challenges:
Highway congestion is a major transportation challenge for the Chicago
area. The roadway system has not grown fast enough to keep pace with
the increase in roadway demand, especially with commercial truck
driving. Currently, trucks comprise up to 40 percent of daily traffic
on three of the area's most congested freeways. Furthermore, by 2030
the number of trucks on Chicago area highways is expected to increase
by 80 percent. Trucks use twice the average road space used by cars and
will account for more than half of the additional vehicles and two
thirds of the effective increase in traffic on the region's roads.
ITS Applications:
Chicago uses many ITS technologies. The Illinois Department of
Transportation (IDOT) operates 22 changeable message signs that display
real-time traffic information on Chicago's freeways. IDOT utilizes over
2,400 loop detectors to collect such information. IDOT also utilizes
113 ramp meters, closed circuit television cameras, and video
surveillance cameras. Drivers with cellular telephones can also call
*999 to notify IDOT of incidents on arterials and freeways. IDOT also
operates three traffic management centers including the Gateway
Traveler Information System which serves as the multimodal traveler
information hub for the three-state Gary-Chicago-Milwaukee Corridor
Coalition. Gateway collects, processes, validates, fuses, and
distributes real-time traffic, travel-time, congestion, construction,
incident, special event, and transit information from and to over a
dozen operating agencies in the corridor to support more effective
management and operation of the transportation system. In addition,
IDOT operates an Emergency Traffic patrol providing over 100,000
expressway motorists with incident assistance annually. Finally,
multiple agencies have the capability to monitor area traffic from 10
traffic management centers.
On its arterial roadways, the Chicago DOT has designed six "smart
corridors" connected by fiber optic signals. In those corridors,
cameras and remote devices are used to improve efficiency through
traffic signal preemptions or fast incident management. Some corridors,
such as Lake Shore Drive, use dynamic message signs. The Chicago DOT
also has a traffic management center with the capability of monitoring
its roadways.
In addition, transit agencies such as the Chicago Transit Authority
have many ITS components on their trains and buses such as Automatic
Vehicle Location, computer-aided dispatch and control, and real-time
passenger information signs.
The Illinois State Toll Highway Authority has also deployed ITS
applications along its 150 miles of highways in the Chicago area.
Specifically, the agency has an electronic toll collection system, a
traffic incident management system to manage operations and incidents
that is integrated with the Illinois State Police computer-aided
dispatch, about 400 closed-circuit televisions, and over 100 detectors
that use speed measurements to provide travel time estimates.
Factors Impacting ITS Deployment:
Chicago has a high level of ITS deployment due to significant federal
funding, congested conditions, and ITS advocates. Since 1991, Chicago
has received over $43 million in federal funding for deployment of ITS
applications. The Gary-Chicago-Milwaukee area was one of four locations
the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991
funded as part of the ITS priority corridor program. ISTEA authorized
the Gary-Chicago-Milwaukee area with over $18 million for ITS
applications. Being a part of the ISTEA program also helped to create
the coalitions between transportation agencies that were needed for
further advancement of ITS after the program ended. In addition,
transportation officials in Chicago stated that the level of congestion
on Chicago's roadways combined with limited ability to build additional
roadways compelled them to look into operational improvements such as
ITS technologies. Finally, Chicago's high deployment level is also the
result of its having ITS advocates at the state and local levels. IDOT
has an ITS office that seeks opportunities to deploy ITS applications
and secure the necessary funding for such applications.
While Chicago transportation agencies have achieved a high level of ITS
deployment, they have faced challenges in operating their ITS
technologies. Transportation officials stated that their agencies lack
funding for operations and were not aware that federal funds could be
used for operations. Consequently, 6 of the 10 transportation
management centers do not have operators monitoring traffic, updating
message signs, and notifying incident management officials when
necessary. (See fig. 4.)
Future ITS Initiatives:
Chicago transportation agencies are proposing 85 ITS projects--ranging
in size from small, low cost actions to multimillion-dollar efforts--at
a total cost of over $304 million. These efforts include the following:
* IDOT proposes to develop a statewide 511 information program, install
an additional 350 cameras for closed circuit television at 1-mile
intervals or less, and install additional dynamic message signs on its
roadways.
* The Chicago DOT proposes to design and implement a city traffic
management center and hub with interfaces to the city's 911 center and
IDOT Gateway Center to cover traffic management, traveler information,
and incident management.
* The Regional Transportation Authority is proposing to install transit
signal prioritization, large message displays of train schedules at
five locations, and regional traveler information kiosks in six
locations.
* The Illinois State Toll Highway Authority has begun a 10-year
renovation to transfer its tollways into an "open road" system. The
open road concept calls for cash-paying customers (those not using the
electronic toll collection passes) to exit the mainline to pay tolls at
new express plazas located at the sides of the roadway. Those using
electronic passes will be able to experience end-to-end, unimpeded
travel over the entire 274-mile toll system.
Figure 4: A Chicago Metropolitan Area's Traffic Management Center That
Lacks Staff Dedicated to Monitoring Traffic throughout the Day:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
San Francisco, California:
Level of Congestion:
In 2003, the San Francisco Bay Area was ranked the fifth most congested
area in the nation; commuters spent 41 percent of their travel time in
congested conditions. Bay Area travelers that year on average spent 72
hours delayed in traffic, costing the area over $2.6 billion in lost
wages and wasted fuel--an excess of 96 million gallons.
Transportation System:
The San Francisco Bay Area consists of nine counties encompassing a
population of about 7 million in 2004. The population is expected to
reach 8.8 million by 2030. In 2000, about 17 million trips were made
daily on the area's 21,218 miles of interstates, freeways, and
principal and minor arterial roads. An additional 1.4 million daily
trips were made on transit systems; San Francisco has ferry, rail, and
bus service. In 2003, over 91.5 million vehicle miles were traveled on
area roadways daily.
Transportation Challenges:
Changes in the Bay Area's demographics will have significant
transportation implications in the future. The percentage of residents
age 65 or older is expected to increase from 10 percent currently to 25
percent in 2030. Meeting the mobility needs of the aging population
will require changes in a number of areas, from the design of cars to
increases in paratransit systems. In addition, average household
incomes in the Bay Area are expected to rise in real terms from $92,000
in 2000 to $118,000 in 2030. The level of auto ownership is likely to
rise with this income increase, as more families will be able to
purchase additional vehicles.
The Bay Area also has a political culture that has significantly
impacted transportation mobility. In the late 1950s, the city of San
Francisco passed legislation opposing new freeway construction in the
city limits. Almost all roads in the city are arterials. In addition,
the Bay Area is expected to spend less on new freeway projects than any
other large urban area in the country.
The geography of San Francisco is a challenge for transportation
solutions. The eight toll bridges in particular are consistently
crowded since they are the main entrance and exits into the
metropolitan area. San Francisco's peninsula geography makes entrance
and exit via a vehicle very challenging. Unless a commuter is driving
from the north, drivers must take a bridge to enter San Francisco.
California has also significantly decentralized transportation decision
making. In 1997, the state passed legislation allocating 75 percent of
the state's transportation funds (including federal transportation
funds) to local entities for regional improvement projects. The
remaining 25 percent is for state administered interregional
improvement programs.
ITS Applications:
Transportation agencies in San Francisco have deployed a wide variety
of ITS technologies. The Bay Area is the largest metropolitan area in
the country to activate a 511 service. The 511 service provides Bay
Area callers and those who visit the 511 Web site with real-time
traffic information about conditions and incidents including point-to-
point driving times on routes throughout the area. The service also
includes fare, schedule and trip planning information on the area's
public transit systems; online ride-matching for ride-sharing, bicycle
route information; and updates on construction projects and special
events affecting traffic. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(the area's MPO) partnered with the CALTRANS (the state DOT) and other
transit agencies to launch the service in 2002. Since its inception,
the 511 system has received praise from the Intelligent Transportation
Society of America and the American Public Transportation Association.
Transportation agencies in the Bay Area also control freeway movement
through communication and roadside equipment that supports ramp
control, lane controls, and interchange controls. Agencies operating
freeways, such as CALTRANS, also have traffic management centers that
monitor freeways to report on traffic information and detect incidents.
Area transportation agencies feature 4,700 traffic sensing detectors on
its 2,800 freeway miles. As a result, 29 percent of the freeways have a
sensing device within 1 mile or less, and 40 percent of the freeways
have a sensing device within 2 miles or less. About 45 percent of these
devices, however, are out of service reducing the ability of staff to
collect traffic data such as speed and volume.[Footnote 45] According
to a DOT official, having 45 percent of traffic detectors out of
service is on the low-end nationally and is not typical. In addition,
San Francisco area drivers can also utilize a highway-advisory radio
station that provides traffic information to highway travelers.
The San Francisco Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT) is leading an
integrated transportation management system effort to utilize ITS
technologies to make traffic flow on arterial streets. DPT has begun an
integrated transportation management system program for eight city
areas. DPT officials stated that they have completed the initial phase
of the effort and have installed electric traffic controls and loop
detectors at 35 intersections and have 15 cameras, 5 video surveillance
monitors, 4 fixed variable message signs, and a traffic management
center that provides the ability to monitor traffic.
The Bay Area Toll Authority has an electronic toll collection program
for bridge toll users. The system has three components: a transponder,
which is placed inside the vehicle; an overhead antenna, which reads
the transponder and collects the toll; and video cameras to identify
toll evaders. The Toll Authority has added at least one electronic toll
collection lane to each of the eight area bridges.
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and six San Francisco
Bay Area transit agencies have developed a regional fare payment
system. The system enables customers to use a single card to ride Bay
Area buses, trains, light rail lines, and ferries. The nine-county Bay
Area will be the first region in the U.S. to have a single card that
can be used on all forms of public transit. In addition, the Bay Area
Rapid Transit agency has installed real-time information, such as
expected arrival time of next transit vehicle, at every rail station
platform.
Factors Impacting ITS Deployment:
The San Francisco Bay Area's level of ITS deployment is high due to
active advocates, federal resources, and a cultural climate that favors
managing over expanding the roadway system. The MTC has taken a strong
role in advocating and moving ITS deployment forward. In addition,
federal funding helped in deploying ITS applications. For example, an
ITS earmark helped launch the agency's ITS initiatives. Between 2004
and 2005, Congress earmarked over $3.7 million for ITS applications in
the Bay Area. The Bay Area also has several cultural factors that have
helped to facilitate ITS deployment. The transportation planners have
maintained a decades-long commitment to preserving and managing the
roadway system over expansion. In addition, according to MTC officials,
the Bay Area has a sense of pride toward developing technology systems
since the nation's technology hub, Silicon Valley, is in the region.
While San Francisco transportation agencies have achieved a high level
of ITS deployment, they have also faced challenges in operating their
ITS technologies. Transportation officials stated that their agencies
lack funding for operations, awareness that federal funds could be used
for operations, and technical standards. In the San Francisco Bay Area,
for example, the MTC estimates that it needs an additional $419 million
above its available funding to fully deploy the area's regional
operations programs--including ITS applications. In addition, some
local officials were not aware that federal funds can be used to
operate and manage ITS technologies, leading some agencies to use their
federal funding to replace their technology systems at much higher
costs than would be needed to operate and maintain their existing
technologies. A lack of business knowledge also led an agency to lease
rather than purchase telecommunication lines needed for transmitting
data from roadway sensors--this decision ended up costing the agency
money in the long run. In addition, a San Francisco official stated
that the slow completion of the standards development process at the
national level caused them to pick a standard in the draft stage,
hoping the technology they chose would be able to connect with future
ITS deployment in the area.
Future ITS Initiatives:
The MTC has taken the lead on future ITS initiatives and plans to
collaborate with local agencies to further the deployment of the
following applications:
* On the freeways, MTC is planning to improve the traffic operations
system and enhance its transportation management center, freeway
service patrol, incident management, technical assistance, and real
time travel information. (See fig. 5 for planned use of traveler
information.)
* On arterial roads, MTC, in cooperation with the San Francisco
Department of Parking and Traffic, plans to implement smart parking.
Smart parking would provide drivers with real-time information on
available parking spots at city garages. This information may improve
efficiency from drivers searching for available parking or double
parking.
* On all roadways, MTC plans to increase coverage of the 511 traveler
information system.
* On transit, MTC is partnering with other transit agencies to further
the deployment of the smart card system and make it available to more
commuters.
Figure 5: Artist's Depiction of Real-Time Travel Information in San
Francisco:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Las Vegas, Nevada:
Level of Congestion:
In 2003, Las Vegas was the ninth most congested area in the nation;
commuters spent 39 percent of their travel time in congested
conditions. Las Vegas drivers that year on average spent 30 hours
delayed in traffic costing the area about $380 million in lost wages
and wasted fuel--about 14 million gallons.
Transportation System:
The Las Vegas metropolitan planning area is a collection of five
incorporated cities and unincorporated rural and urban areas, all
located in Clark County and encompassing a population of about 1.6
million in 2003. The population is expected to reach almost 2.4 million
by 2025. In 2003, over 3.6 million trips were made daily on the area's
6,569 miles of roadways. An additional approximately 124,000 daily
trips were made on transit systems. In 2003, over 27.4 million vehicle
miles were traveled on area roadways daily.
Las Vegas is one of the fastest growing urban areas in the nation.
Gaming, proximity to natural scenic attractions, a favorable climate,
and direct access by air and ground resulted in a population boom
between 1990 and 2000. During that time, the population rose from
741,000 to about 1.38 million--an increase of 86 percent. Phoenix, by
comparison, which during the same time period was the second fastest
growing area had a population increase of 45 percent.
Transportation Challenges:
The Las Vegas population growth has outpaced transportation
infrastructure development. The increase in population has placed an
increased demand for transit and roadway services. Las Vegas, however,
has only two major freeways, the U.S. 95 and the I-15. Although Clark
County Public Works is planning on building a Beltway, motorists rely
primarily on arterials for mobility.
ITS Applications:
Las Vegas transportation agencies have coordinated efforts to establish
an ITS system on the arterial roadways in the metropolitan area. The
Las Vegas MPO manages the Freeway and Arterial System of Transportation
organization (FAST)--an integrated freeway and arterial management
system designed to reduce congestion, and improve incident response
time and management. FAST is designed to both monitor and control
traffic. To monitor traffic, FAST plans to move into a new traffic
management center in the summer of 2005 to monitor all roadways.
However, none of the area's freeway miles currently are covered by
electronic surveillance, and the state DOT is just beginning to link
its ITS sensory technologies with those deployed by the local
transportation and law enforcement agencies.
Factors Impacting ITS Deployment:
Some of the barriers that have impacted ITS deployment in Las Vegas
include funding inflexibilities, staffing limitations, and
technological barriers. A few transportation officials stated the
federal integration deployment program funds are specifically
designated for integration and not strictly for deployment. This
requirement made it difficult for Las Vegas to use a congressional
earmark since it has already highly integrated its limited ITS
deployment. In addition, transportation officials stated that most
agencies do not have enough staff to keep up with developing
technologies. Finally, needed equipment is not always readily
available. Transportation officials stated that the ITS market is
small, making it difficult to find equipment that meets standards and
is not expensive.
Future ITS Initiatives:
The FAST organization plans to deploy ramp meters, dynamic message
signs, and a 511 statewide traveler information system for area
roadways. In addition, the Las Vegas area plans to provide real-time
information on one of the two area freeways and at transit area kiosks.
Indianapolis, Indiana:
Level of Congestion:
In 2003, Indianapolis was the twenty-fifth most congested area in the
nation; commuters spent 34 percent of their travel time in congested
conditions. Indianapolis drivers that year on average spent 38 hours
delayed in traffic costing the area about $362 million in lost wages
and wasted fuel--about 14 million gallons.
Transportation System:
The Indianapolis metropolitan area includes Marion County and portions
of Hamilton, Boone, Hendricks, Johnson, and Morgan counties
encompassing a population of about 1.4 million in 2000. The population
is expected to reach about 1.7 million by 2030. The city and county are
a unified, consolidated government entity. In 2002, over 5.5 million
vehicles traveled daily on the area's 5,644 lane miles of roadway. An
additional 28,000 trips were made on the transit systems. In 2003, over
30.6 million vehicle miles were traveled on area roadways daily. The
area has five major Interstates.
Transportation Challenges:
Indianapolis has an entrenched car culture. Drivers use the Interstates
for local trips and generally do not use public transit. Between 2002
and 2030, the Indianapolis MPO forecasts that daily vehicle trips will
increase from 5.5 million to over 6 million trips. Transportation
officials stated that the area has no natural barriers to limit sprawl.
In addition, the transit system has been underutilized because of the
continuing challenges with the number of routes, convenience, and a
culture that does not support public transit.
Indianapolis has isolated instances of congestion. Many large special
events attracting tourists, such as the Indianapolis 500, NASCAR, and
NCAA tournaments create heavy episodic congestion. Although the entire
metropolitan area is not considered very congested, certain locations
in the metropolitan area experience heavier congestion than others.
ITS Applications:
Indianapolis features few ITS applications. In 2004, the Indiana DOT
opened a traffic management center. The traffic management center has
incorporated cameras, sensors, and other technologies on about 25
percent of the Interstates and is charged with posting traffic
information via changeable message signs, highway advisory radio,
pagers, and real-time on the Web to inform drivers. The state DOT also
runs the Hoosier Helper program--an emergency roadside assistance
program that assists stranded motorists, removes debris from roadways,
and sends for help in emergency situations. (See fig. 6.) On arterial
roads, the Indianapolis Department of Public Works also has a traffic
control center where the agency can control and coordinate signals and
view intersections.
Factors Impacting ITS Deployment:
Some of the barriers that have impacted ITS deployment in Indianapolis
include a lack of congestion, agency coordination, ITS staff and
technical expertise. The public does not perceive congestion levels to
be significant. The public is not knowledgeable or interested in ITS
technologies and may object to ITS deployment. According to a
transportation official, the Indianapolis community may not welcome the
deployment of ITS technologies such as ramp metering, causing local
agencies to avoid implementing or upgrading ITS applications.
Furthermore, some local agencies are not willing to commit to ITS,
fearing it will take away funds from other programs. ITS deployment is
not part of the locally established planning process and, therefore,
planners do not consider it in their roadway building alternatives. In
addition, transportation agencies in Indianapolis generally do not
coordinate their ITS efforts. The state DOT traffic management system,
for example, does not have a link to the city's traffic management
center operated by the Department of Public Works; the agencies are
operating independently. ITS staff is limited and lacks technical
expertise. The ITS staff located at some agencies have increasing
workload constraints that hinder the deployment of ITS. This ITS staff
also lack technical expertise--there are few engineers that can provide
the skills and knowledge needed to deploy ITS systems.
Future ITS Initiatives:
The state DOT is advancing its traffic management system, while the
Indianapolis Department of Public Works is determining the ITS needs
for arterial roadways. The state DOT is moving into advanced phases of
its advanced traffic management system and plans to install a total of
125 cameras spaced approximately every mile and a system of vehicle
detection underneath the pavement placed every half mile on high-volume
roads and one-mile on lower volume roads to measure the overall traffic
flow. The agency plans full implementation of the system by 2008. The
Indianapolis Department of Public Works is in the process of examining
its ITS goals and the potential of ITS technologies such as a traffic
management center with real time traffic information. The Department of
Public Works also plans to centralize traffic control with the
capabilities to respond to incidents, weather, and events over the next
5 to 10 years.
In addition, an DOT official stated that technical expertise in ITS is
growing. The state DOT is expanding its ITS and traffic management
staff. FHWA is offering additional training to the MPO staff as well.
Figure 6: Indiana Hoosier Helper Van:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
JayEtta Z. Hecker, (202) 512-2834 or [Hyperlink, heckerj@gao.gov]:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, Cathy Colwell, Assistant
Director; Samer Abbas; Kimberly Berry; Jay Cherlow; Jason Kelly; Gail
Marnik; Sara Ann Moessbauer; and Alwynne Wilbur made key contributions
to this report.
(544097):
FOOTNOTES
[1] David Schrank and Tim Loma, Texas Transportation Institute, 2005
Urban Mobility Report (College Station Texas, 2005).
[2] ITS technologies are also used for a number of other purposes,
including improving safety. However, safety impacts are not in the
scope of this review.
[3] GAO, Surface and Maritime Transportation: Developing Strategies for
Enhancing Mobility: A National Challenge, GAO-02-775 (Washington, D.C.:
Aug. 30, 2002).
[4] State and local governments provide an even greater share of the
funding for surface transportation investments than the federal
government. For example, in fiscal year 1999, state and local
governments contributed 61 percent of the total public sector spending
for public roads.
[5] SAFETEA-LU authorized funding for the 2005 ITS integration
deployment program.
[6] GAO, Federal-Aid Highways: Trends, Effect on State Spending, and
Options for Future Program Design, GAO-04-802 (Washington, D.C.: Aug.
31, 2004).
[7] Although the federal ITS program has also included a research
component and ITS technologies are used for a number of purposes, in
this report we are focusing on the federal role in the deployment and
use of ITS technologies to mitigate congestion rather than on the
research and development of such technologies.
[8] GAO, Surface Transportation: Many Factors Affect Investment
Decisions, GAO-04-744 (Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2004).
[9] GAO-04-802.
[10] GAO, Highway and Transit Investments: Options for Improving
Information on Projects' Benefits and Costs and Increasing
Accountability for Results, GAO-05-172 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 24,
2005).
[11] These projects, like most federal-aid highway projects, would
require some matching of federal funds. The federal share of the cost
of a project from integration program funds cannot exceed 50 percent,
with the total federal share from all sources of funding not to exceed
80 percent.
[12] GAO-04-744.
[13] The Secretary of Transportation also included a commitment to
upgrading technologies in 450 other communities and on rural roads and
interstates. We did not focus on this area of the goal as DOT included
the goal for the 75 metropolitan areas in its performance plan and has
put greater effort into tracking and reporting progress toward this
goal and because ITS for rural areas are less likely to be focused on
congestion mitigation.
[14] The other seven mentioned in the speech were transit management
systems; incident management programs; electronic toll collection for
roads and bridges; electronic fare payment systems for such things as
the bus, train, and toll lanes; railroad-grade crossings; emergency
response providers; and traveler information systems.
[15] DOT also continues to play a role in ITS research, which we did
not examine in this study.
[16] In 1994, DOT established the ITS Joint Program Office (JPO) to
coordinate the ITS program among the modal administrations. The JPO
staff perform many of the tasks mentioned here, such as tracking ITS
deployment.
[17] DOT closely followed the nine components established by the
Secretary in developing its criteria, but grouped them into five areas,
including freeway management/incident management; transit
management/electronic fare payment; arterial management; regional
multimodal traveler information; and emergency management services.
According to DOT officials, DOT did not consider tollway miles in its
assessment, since tollway miles are such a small part of the expressway
network.
[18] An area is rated medium if it exceeds the threshold value for
freeway management/incident management or transit management/electronic
fare payment and at least one other component.
[19] Although DOT does obtain some information on the operations of
transportation management centers, it is not used to measure progress
toward the deployment goal.
[20] The National Transportation Operations Coalition (NTOC) is an
alliance of national associations, practitioners and private sector
groups to represent the collective interests of stakeholders at state,
local and regional levels, who have a wide range of experience in
operations, planning and public safety.
[21] GAO-04-802.
[22] GAO-05-172.
[23] DOT has made available a software program known as the ITS
Deployment Analysis System (IDAS) for state and local planners to
estimate the benefits and costs of ITS investments.
[24] GAO-05-172.
[25] The ranking is based on the congestion measure--percent of daily
travel under congested conditions.
[26] According to transportation officials we met with, if an agency
has a working detection of traffic sensing within a mile, then it can
develop a good estimation of travel time and congestion.
[27] Although DOT identified ITS deployment as a strategy to achieve
the 2004 target to limit annual growth of urban area travel time under
congested conditions to 0.2 percent, the ITS benefits database does not
provide information relating to progress toward this goal. Rather, the
information in the database focuses on individual ITS deployments and
local improvements.
[28] Schrank and Lomax.
[29] In 1994, we reported that the potential benefits of properly
designed, operated and maintained traffic control signal systems were
not being realized. GAO, Transportation Infrastructure: Benefits of
Traffic Control Signal Systems Are Not Being Fully Realized, GAO/RCED-
94-105 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 30, 1994).
[30] E. Bekiaris and Y J Nakanishi, Economic Impacts of Intelligent
Transportation Systems, 8 (Elsevier, 2004).
[31] System enhancements consist of traffic operations improvements and
environmental enhancements.
[32] System preservation projects would include capital improvements on
existing roads and bridges intended to sustain the existing
infrastructure, but not include routine maintenance activities.
[33] GAO-04-744.
[34] Cambridge Systematics, Inc., "Twin Cities Ramp Meter Evaluation"
(prepared for Minnesota Department of Transportation pursuant to laws
2000, ch. 479, HF2891, Feb. 1, 2001).
[35] Over 250 respondents rated ramp meters on a scale from zero to 10,
with a rating of 1 meaning that respondents strongly disagreed with a
statement and a rating of 10 suggesting that they strongly agreed. The
respondents rated their overall satisfaction with ramp meters at 4.99,
on average, in 2000. After the shutdown study was completed, the
average rating increased to 6.13 in 2001.
[36] GAO-04-744.
[37] Operating costs include labor costs, administrative costs, costs
of utilities and rent, and other costs including system maintenance
costs, associated with the continuous operation of the system. Routine
maintenance items that are not critical to the successful operation of
the system, such as the painting of traffic signal controller cabinets,
would normally fall outside of eligible operating costs.
[38] GAO, Urban Transportation: Challenges to Widespread Deployment of
Intelligent Transportation Systems, GAO/RCED-97-74 (Washington, D.C.:
Feb. 27, 1997).
[39] FHWA Resource Center offices are located in Baltimore, Chicago
(Olympia Fields), Atlanta, and San Francisco.
[40] Standards promote interoperability--the ability of systems to
provide services and to accept services from other systems and to use
the services so exchanged to enable them to be operated effectively
together.
[41] In 1996, Secretary Peña established the goal that 75 of the
largest metropolitan areas would be outfitted with a complete
intelligent infrastructure by 2005. Since 1996, DOT has increased the
number of metropolitan areas for which it tracks deployment from 75 to
78. However, to maintain reporting consistency across the 10-year goal,
DOT only reports on the original 75 metropolitan areas.
[42] There are many ways to measure the level of congestion. In this
report, we used DOT's measure of congestion--the percent of travel
under congested conditions--to identify congested metropolitan areas.
[43] Since 1996, DOT has increased the number of metropolitan areas on
which it tracks deployment from 75 to 78. However, to maintain
reporting consistency across the 10-year goal, DOT only reports on the
original 75 metropolitan areas.
[44] We defined congestion as the percent of travel that is under
congested conditions--DOT's measure of congestion.
[45] According to transportation officials we met with, if an agency
has a working traffic sensing detector within a mile, then it can
develop a good estimation of travel time and congestion.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548: